According to You: What was Ford’s biggest missed opportunity?

Nesbitt's Ford Carrousel Proposal Richard Nesbitt

Good afternoon and welcome back to According to You!

The answers you provided for this week’s prompt were pretty fantastic, and we were even lucky enough to catch the eye of celebrated designer Richard “Dick” Nesbitt, a man whose career at Ford Motor Company speaks for itself. Happily, Dick embraced the “missed opportunity” brief and shared with us some behind-the-scenes information about Ford’s Carrousel minivan proposal, a project he worked on while at Ford’s design studio. We were honored to receive the “Selected and approved” Carrousel renderings, directly from his collection of historical assets. It includes the “Nantucket” proposal, an advanced version of the design that was refined and initially slated for the 1975 model year.

It never reached production. Fundamentally based on the full-frame Econoline and its thirsty V-8, the oil crisis and a round of cost cutting at Ford led to the project’s demise. (Eventually, the Aerostar of the mid-1980s assumed the Ford minivan mantle.) Still, Nesbitt was kind enough to share details about what the development process looked like in those days:

“My Carrousel design proposal was selected and approved for development in 1972. I was a designer with Ford Design assigned to the Light Truck and Tractor Design Studio. My proposal and another (by Ford designer Jim Grey) was done as a full-size ‘Squire’ clay model. I got the passenger side and rear, Jim Grey got the front and driver’s side. After several design clinic reviews, my proposal was selected. I was asked to design a new front for the drivable prototype supervised by Project Engineer George Peterson.”

Richard Nesbitt

Nesbitt was also kind enough to show us his “Family Van design concept,” made in 1963 … when he was still in high school! The decades of ideation behind the minivan proves that some ideas are just waiting for the right company to make them. On that note, let’s proceed with more examples of missed opportunities at the Blue Oval.

Not keeping Iacocca

Ford

Any automotive historian knows the great Lee Iacocca, and the idea for the aforementioned Carrousel vanished for a decade amid his departure from Ford. He was instrumental in the creation of the Ford Mustang. He saved Chrysler. And @audiobycarmine made it very clear what Ford did wrong, summed up in four words: “Lee Iacocca as CEO.”

Then again, Iacocca wasn’t perfect. He was quoted in Bob Lutz’s book, Icons and Idiots, with this poorly aged gem: “You picked a good time to leave Ford, lemme tell ya! Those potato cars (Taurus and Sable) they’re coming out with are gonna bomb.”

Killing off cars

2018 Ford Fusion recall brake hose 2023
2018 Ford Fusion Ford

This one is pretty self explanatory, but let’s keep in mind that all the cars Ford canceled (Focus, Fiesta, Taurus, Fusion) were in their late days only selling with heavy incentives and considerable frustrations for dealers and Dearborn executives alike. Maybe they didn’t have to all die in one fell swoop, but clearly the higher-ups at Ford were confident something had to change. Still, maybe just throw us one car aside from the Mustang?

@Russel: I was all set to buy a Focus ST when Ford killed pretty much everything car-like other than the Mustang. Talk about a slap in the face to anyone who didn’t want a truck, SUV or Mustang. Why does Ford think people don’t want cars? All they need to do is look out the window (do ivory towers have windows?) and play “count the Corollas”. So my contribution would be “cars” in general. (BTW, I bought a WRX.)

@Owen: Ford’s biggest mistake was dropping all their car models – not everyone wants or can afford a $100K SUV or pickup truck. It gauls me they dropped the Focus Station Wagon back in 2008. I’ve owned a 2005 since new and it’s the best Ford I’ve ever owned. I’ve been buying new Ford’s for 44 years. My first one was a 79 T-Bird which I still own. Ford just doesn’t listen to their customers and neither does GM or Chrysler. My next car won’t be a Ford sorry to say because they aren’t making anything I want to buy anymore….very, very sad.

@Mike: I think the demise of the Fusion, Focus and Fiesta in the US market will be a decision that they will regret. And will Ford please stop teasing us with that ActiveX Fusion based Station Wagon (there, I said it, the unmentionable word, Station Wagon). I’m a lifetime Ford guy. I wanted an all wheel drive wagon (not an SUV) and they forced me to schlep over to Buick for a TourX. (A lovely car that, par for the course, GM killed as soon as I bought one!) And now I’m over to Subaru for an Outback (which has the worst ergonomics and is a rolling driver distraction to operate.)

@snailish: Ford giving up on North America getting the Focus. I have a decades-long bias against little cars ingrained by my upbringing. I test drove a 2019 Focus amongst other things and had to eat crow. It was a great car and I seriously considered buying it, and the RS version is still tempting (just not at the price point they seem to demand still).

Turning to Personal Luxury

Ford

In the late 1950s, Ford did the right thing by switching the Thunderbird to a four-seat, personal luxury touring car. But 1958 isn’t 2023. The T-bird outsold the Corvette for decades until Ford killed it first 1997, revived it, and then killed it once again in 2005 (when it went back to its 1955 roots). Now that the Corvette can boast nearly twenty years of unanswered sales from the big bird, do we think going the luxury route was really the right move?

@DUB6: Considering how many Corvettes there are in the world, and how many things center around that brand (clubs, parts, collections, sales, etc.), it seems to me that Ford missed its opportunity when it turned the Thunderbird into a personal luxury car. Starting as a 2-seat American sports car to compete with the plastic Chevy, the T-Bird of the mid-’50s has shown that it could be every bit as attractive and fun as early Corvettes, but FoMoCo abandoned the idea too quickly. When I think of where it could have gone (think Ford GT, for instance), it just seems to me that continuing to put Thunderbirds up against Corvettes might have given Ford a sports car following that rivals Chevy’s entry.

@Tim: The T-Bird is an interesting animal. On one hand, it was a two-door, two-seat sports car to begin its life, and it should arguably have stayed that way. Imagine what it might have become over the generations. However, one wonders if the market truly hard room for both the Thunderbird and Corvette. On the other hand, one could argue that Ford took the proper approach and make the T-Bird into the car that more people wanted. Sales figures certainly leaped ahead after the it morphed into the car that no one really wanted yet many more people really wanted. In my mind, the first-gen Thunderbird was great, and after that, it took a long time to be great again. We had a turbo coupe in the ’80s, and although it wasn’t at all like Gen 1, it was a pretty great car in its segment.

@snailish: I agree that T-bird has been several different things entirely, and if properly developed several of them probably could have lasted decades. I’d love to see a modern SuperCoupe personal luxury effort.

Not following Europe’s lead?

Ford

Ford of Europe has made some extremely impressive cars for middle-class Europeans, while Dearborn’s expertise remains larger, thirstier vehicles for Americans. That said, good luck finding a European with catalytic converters and/or fuel injection back then … but I digress.

When Ford of Europe first worked hand-in-hand with the U.S. mothership on the 1980 Escort, it became the first “World Car” and inspiration for today’s Fusion (USA), Mondeo (EU), and Taurus (China). It was truly a shared initiative, and you can read the details about it here. But could the two businesses collaborated more, and sooner? Hagerty Community member @Thomas might be on to something:

“I believe the largest of Ford missed opportunity was not using their Europe/ UK division’s to design and assist with the development of the small / efficient cars and engines that the North American market required in the ’70s. The Pinto and others just didn’t achieve their goals and let the Japanese makers in the market get established as a leader of that segment. Ford of all the BIG 3 had the global work force and talent to create something special, if they did maybe there would be a small Ford on the road in place of the Corolla!”

Killing models and bringing them back

Compact vs. Midsize Ranger
Strokerduster | www.ranger5g.com

Vehicles cease production for reasons other than low demand, but it’s still a shame to see the rise and fall of famous brands from the Blue Oval. As @Michael put it:

“Ford has a weird thing of taking a successful product then killing it only to bring it back. The Ford Ranger should have never stopped production. Ford should have made the third generation Ranger with 4 doors. The market seems to respond to a non-full size 4 door truck. The Ford Taurus which saved Ford was discontinued then brought back now discontinued. Ford should have built a better performance model of the popular Fusion. A six speed turbocharged sport suspension Fusion would have attracted those who didn’t want to pay BMW pricing but wanted a performance midsize sedan.”

Ford did build the Fusion Sport with the F-150’s beefy 2.7-liter twin-turbo V-6, but with a six-speed automatic only.

Excursion, Flex, and Ranchero

Ford Ranchero
Ford

And the flip side of the previous thought is the fact that Ford killed off some seriously cool machines … for good.

@snailish: Ford Flex… one of the most neglected sales success stories ever. They are good and people loved them. But it seemed like Ford didn’t even want to admit they offered them.

@Charles: Ford really blew it when they kept the Explorer instead of keeping the Excursion with just using Diesel motors: just look on eBay to see what the internet thinks. My 2004 Excursion with the 6.0 Diesel has 282,000 miles on and still gets almost 20 mpg at 80 mph, it still has all front and rear end parts as originally installed at the factory.

Screwing Robertson screws

Peter Lymburner Robertson

This was a new one to me, but apparently we coulda had more of these instead of the fasteners we now see in America had it not been for Henry Ford. Or as @snailish put it:

“Henry Ford played hardball with the Robertson screw inventor, resulting in an inferior option (Phillips) becoming a standard. We continue to pay the price for this today (every time I have to deal with a rusty screw on my Mustang…)

Something more Model A-like?

Ford

My apologizes to the product planners behind the Ford EcoSport, but the anodyne styling did not do it any favors. Some of our commenters think a Model A for the modern era could have been a success. Would the EcoSport have been a good candidate with proper treatment?

@Old Coot: With how new cars are getting lighter and the population older (ie, we don’t like to crawl DOWN into these stupid little roller skate cars with our bad knees and backs), and with the common love of Model A’s, Ford is missing a sales opportunity by not making a new Model A look-alike, with a 3-cylinder engine / plug-in hybrid. Sure these old body styles are not streamlined, and not as safe as many cars to day, but with a little head scratching I think they could make it safer and give us old coots one more chance to enjoy nostalgia (with updated tech) before cars are phased out and we all are forced to live sterile boring lives in high rises.

@Dennis: Agreed 100%. They all should go both ways. I like my AWD in winter but a little wagon set up to run with low hp and be a gas sipper. I don’t know how they think? A lot of people don’t want a computer screen or pull a 40’ trailer. Some just to want to get 50+ mpg. My Escort wagon 5 speed manual could get 34 mpg with a radio and a/c. Keep it simple stupid. Not everyone is feeling e cars are the answer.

@Ben: I agree with the Old Coot about diving into low slung vehicles. I’ve owned some nice Mustangs, but found that the older I get the harder it is to maneuver entry and exit. My solution was the Dodge Challenger. Good looking, easy access, 2 door and extremely comfortable!

Separation of Body and Frame?

Let’s face it, modern trucks are hard to deal with when the warranty expires. They are very complex, and components can be rather hard to access. Some think Fords should still be easy to repair for fleet managers and shade tree wrenches. Hagerty community member @Dale puts this notion into context:

“Ford’s biggest missed opportunity is the current F-150’s and Super Dutys. Ram is catching up to Ford’s trucks (if you believe Consumers Report’s testing). The switch to weight reduction with aluminum bodies was a great move, but there is a big gorilla in the garage that no one is talking about. I am referring to cab and box removal required for serious (gas and Diesel) engine service.

Remain a leader, and take the bold step of designing a tilt front end to ease engine service. All service mechanics and fleet managers will thank you, Ford. It is not rocket science – they did it with the immensely successful C-Series – why not now with their light duty trucks (and some SUVs)? Will GM or Ram beat Ford to it?”

Click below for more about
Read next Up next: 2024 Chevrolet Silverado adds 3.0-liter Duramax to ZR2

Comments

    If you compare the T-Bird sales numbers from 1957 to 1958, there’s no question Ford made the right move from a business point of view.

    I have to agree with the “Killing off of Cars”, comments. European and Japanese manufacturers are able to do it, and maintain a viable business model. I’m sure if maintaining this line was that much of a fiscal burden, they wouldn’t be continuing them. Oh well, if you’re not adverse to buying from those market stalwarts, guess that’s where we’ll have to go. Audi makes a killer 600 horsepower wagon that looks really good! Mmm…

    My wife loved the Flex when she saw it at an auto show. It had room for seven or five people with luggage. I thought it was too boxy. It was inexpensive surprisingly functional car with power. After five years gave it to one of my sons. To this day he shuttles his family with the Flex. Don’t understand why they decided to nix it. I see alot driving around in my area.

    Quality has been the biggest issue from my experience. Our family has owned several Mustangs over the last few years, an ’06, ’11 and presently a 2016 Roush Modified convertible. The ’06 was a low mileage car, that was traded in at 29K miles. The ’11 had over 89K miles and did have some nagging issues (ball joints, power seat motor, blend door actuator). The Roush only has 13K miles it’s still a brand new car.

    The biggest disappointment was a 2010 F150 we owned. During ownership (less than 100K miles) we had the following issues…

    Cam phasers (twice)
    Shattered back glass due to a know issue with the rear defrosters hating the glass to the point of breakage. Horror stories of people trying to get them covered under warranty. Thankfully for us we had a great service manager who advocated for us.
    Driver side Blend door actuator, a $40 part that requires pulling the dash, driver seat and console
    Passenger side blend door actuator (not quite as involved as the driver side)
    HVAC fan stuck on high (can’t remember the exact cause of that one)
    Infamous tick from cracked exhaust manifold bolts (both sides)
    Several suspension related issues

    There is more, but that’s all I can remember from the top of my head. The truck is gone but I have a folder full of service records.

    Thank God I had purchased an extended warranty. I am not exaggerating that warranty saved me so much in repair bills that it undoubtedly paid for every other extended warranty I have purchased for my other vehicles. I am dead serious.

    It was a great driving vehicle when it wasn’t at the shop. I would be very leery of purchasing another F150 in the future.

    Now I think I heard they are killing the Transit Connect. Another popular model put out to pasture. They don’t learn

    Henry Ford II just plain didn’t like Iacocca. Perhaps they belonged to opposing country clubs. As far as the claim that the Thunderbird personal luxury car was a mistake how can you say this. T-Bird sold 17,000 units in 1957 while the 1958,1959 and 1960 sold 40,000, 60,000 and 90,000 units respectively. By the way the car wasn’t cheap. The 4 seater T-Bird elevated the whole Ford line and both GM and Chrysler nothing to counter. The concept of a small, heavy (made for a smooth) and powerful car was all new. In those days to get a big motor you had to get a big car. The 1956 Studebaker Golden Hawk was the first personal luxury car with its 352 Packard motor. It said Studebaker so it sold only fairly well. If you watch black and white TV shows from the 50’s the 4 seater T-Bird was all the rage from Perry Mason to 77 Sunset Strip. The 1962 Grand Prix, 1961 Starfire and 1963 Riviera showed personal luxury was the way to go. It took Chevy until 1970 with the Monte Carlo to catch up. The problem with the T-Bird was when Ford offered it as a 4 door in 1967 and then it kept getting bigger and bigger. The 1970-1971 models were grotesque and Ford lost its way. The cars became a far cry from the original concept. When I sit in any one of my 1958-1966 Thunderbirds I feel like I’m in a space ship. Especially the fully loaded 1964-1966 cars.

    Ford did make their share of “mindless ” blunders and one of the largest was letting Lee Iacocca go to Chrysler. It’s true, he did reign over the dullest cars that company had ever produced, however the alternative for Chrysler at the time was “It’s these cars or no cars”. Thankfully the Omni, Horizon and Mini-Van kept the company’s head above water ONCE MORE … good job Lee ! and thanks for re-introducing the convertible too.

    Had a Camry Hybrid, and wife wanted a car with backup camera. Her right eye was messed up from birth, and she had no depth perception. Also getting a bit older, right lane changes were needing to have her turn her torso more than 90° to see what was coming up on the right side, or hiding in her blind spot. 2015, she had enough of the challenge, and I started researching for a replacement. Found 2 cars that were comparable – the Ford Fusion hyprid, and the Honda Accord hybrid. Drove both cars, and they did well, so it was a choice between the two on features. Both had backup cameras, but the Honda had one feature that sealed the choices. I was wanting a USA car, but the Honda had not only the backup camera, but a camera showing the right hand lane, viewed in the “dashboard” screen, so she didn’t have to turn around to see if it were safe to change lanes to the right. Sorry folks, but the little orange dot in the right hand mirror doesn’t tell anything other than a car is right next to you. So, unfortunately that was the deal breaker. It does however, get more mpg than our Camry ever did. I still miss my ’29 Model A that I started driving in though!

    After Ford decided that my wife was not worth $7.98 (the rubber part they DIDN’T put on the ford pinto – hence the exploding gas tank), I have not bought a ford since. (1974)

    Most people forget that Ford went down this road once before. In the late 1990’s all Ford had in the pipeline were trucks – SUVs, pick-ups, you name it. And then we brushed with $4.00 gas prices. Jaques Nasser blinked and Bill Ford bought Volvo Cars. The stated reason was that they wanted a “volume luxury car” which was known for safety.
    The real reason was that the the then new Volvo S80 had a brilliant platform that could and WOULD form the basis for multitude of different cars, Mini-vans and SUVs! From the S80, Ford got the next gen Taurus (first known as the Ford Five Hundred), the Windstar mini-van, The Taurus X SUV, the Ford Flex, and the Ford Edge. These represent the bulk of Ford’s volume in the 20 tens!
    I once mentioned this to a Ford engineer who bristled and said “We spent hundreds of millions to dumb down that platform! It’s ours!” Congrats Ford. History is bunk and we learn f-all nothing from it. So kill all your cars… Who are you going to buy next time?

    The was definitely a market for each car in 1957. People drove the Corvette for one reason, fun! Others drove the Thunderbird for one reason, comfort. Two different concepts for two different audiences. Ford kept altering the size of the Thunderbird and eventually lost it’s market. Chevrolet kept the Corvette strictly for fun and for over 70 years! Even our Federal Government realized the importance of the Corvette when their “bean-counters” demanded keeping the car throughout the bankruptcy proceedings. As a litmus test answer the question: How many Thunderbird clubs can you name? Ford never had an answer for Corvette’s challenge.

    I bought a very clean 97 Tbird two years ago with 70k on it for 2500$. It is a great cruise night car for me, it actually gets some attention as I am the only one around my area with one. The A/C blows ice cold, and at this point in my life, that is more important than horsepower. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your daily pit stop for automotive news.

Sign up to receive our Daily Driver newsletter

Subject to Hagerty's Privacy Policy and Terms of Conditions

Thanks for signing up.