Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:47:19 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> wrote:

>It is a curiosity that British-owned manufacturers are hopeless at producing
>cars profitably in larger quantities (and hence have disappeared), and yet
>southern and central England is the home of that cottage industry of kit
>cars and world-class racing, incl Indy.<snip>

The British have never been adept at mass production of anything.
Rather, their forte has always been, and will always be, custom hand
worked items of exceptional quality, as the aforementional race cars
show continually. It's this seemingly genetic trait that made a Rolls
a Rolls for decades...the impeccable quality of hand fitting and
unsurpassed workmanship.

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:05:36 UTC, DeserTBoB >
wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:19:12 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> > wrote:
>
> >Regarding a "reliable" that is my point. At some stage maybe 20/25 years ago
> >the age of the reliable car began. <snip>
>
> I don't exactly buy that, either. Many US cars was very reliable as
> far back as the 1950s, although they needed considerably more routine
> maintenance (short term oil and lube intervals, for one) than modern
> lubrication technology needs today.
>
> One case comes to mind from that era, from Cadillac Motor Division.
> The Barr-Cole OHV engine which used all the basic engine design tenets
> of "Boss" Kettering laid out in the late 1930s, introduced in 1949 to
> the market, was the most efficient automotive power plant yet devised
> anywhere in the world at the time. With proper maintenance, it would
> easily also turn in a quarter million miles without having its heads
> off, despite its lightweight construction. Teamed with the
> indestructable HydraMatic transmission, this power plant simply did
> not have an equal anywhere in the world for years, and 1949-1955
> Cadillacs became increasingly known for Rolls-Royce-like reliability
> and durability.
>
> Then, someone at GM decided that it was time to retire the old
> HydraMatic and come up with one with smoother shifting and a
> cheaper-to-produce and lighter aluminum case...as well as somewhat
> decreased efficiency. The result was the Dual Coupling HydraMatic of
> 1956, as big a disaster as any in those days. Many other engineering
> screw-ups happened in GM senior cars in '56, especially those of
> Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Cadillac divisions using the new transmission.
> While engines were increased in displacement and compression ratio to
> win their respective "horsepower races," radiator sizes remained the
> same. Also, an oil cooler, not needed on the pre-war HydraMatic, had
> to be added because of designed-in fluid coupling slippage. The
> higher compression, larger displacement and transmission heat load
> caused 1956 GM cars from these divisions to be well known
> "overheaters" on the road, along with vapor locking and other bad
> behavior.
>
> After some "screwing around" in 1957 and '58 to try to ameliorate
> these problems due to customer complaints (and defections to Chrysler
> and Ford), by 1959 these cars were once again more reliable, with the
> aforementioned problems cured with "work-arounds" such as bigger
> radiators, clutch drive fans, a valve body redesign and bypass type
> fuel pumps. Meanwhile, down in the low end of the market in 1957,
> Chevrolet Division unleashed one of the worst automatic transmissions
> ever devised (aside from the Packard Ultramatic), the Chevy
> "Turboglide," again another move to increase retail cost and decrease
> efficiency. Hydrokinetic torque multipliers are cheaper to produce
> than quality planetary gearsets, and that, plus lower fuel economy,
> was the goal. When the president of Buick Division was interviewed
> about the horrid showing of a Dynaflow-equipped (no gear reduction,
> but a huge 5 element torque converter similar to the Turboglide) Buick
> Super in the 1958 Mobil Economy Run (8 MPG average!), his reply, which
> was later denied by GM top brass, was, "Well...we have to keep our oil
> company friends happy!"
>
> So, reliable, efficient cars have been around, at least in the US,
> much longer than since 1980. There's considerable evidence that many
> of the reliability problems of cars after the post-war engineering
> bonanza were purposely done to increase service income, fuel
> consumption and "trade ins." In 1971, GM launched its "less car for
> more money" campaign, wherein GM car lines were cheapened throughout,
> but retail prices were boosted. Ex-GM executives, notably John De
> Lorean, have admitted to this for years, and any examination of 1971
> full-sized GM cars tells the tale easily. Thus, the "reliable car"
> has been around for awhile...until management chicanery prevents it
> from being so on a routine basis. It should also be noted that De
> Lorean wasn't innocent of engineering screw-ups himself...he was
> responsible for THE worst automatic transmission ever made, the
> Ultramatic, while an engineer at Packard in 1947. His transmission
> helped tank Packard by late 1955.
>
> However, over in the UK, other forces were at work to prevent reliable
> automobiles...mostly engineering incompetence, and that's a whole
> different story!
This makes me appreciate my FluidDrive even more! I wish that
Chrysler would come back with that one, gives me the option of
clutching or not!

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:52:40 -0500, "Count Floyd"
<CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater> wrote:

>This makes me appreciate my FluidDrive even more! I wish that
>Chrysler would come back with that one, gives me the option of
>clutching or not! <snip>

I had a girlfriend in my late teens who always drove Grandma's '53 De
Soto with Fluid Drive on dates, so I know that box a little bit. Like
anything with Chrysler transmissions, it seemed to be troublefree. I
remember it had very nice black and white paint and a HUGE back seat.

I never did get a convincing bit of data about which two speed was
better overall...Powerflite or Chevy's lousy "Powerslide." Seems
every '55 and '56 Chrysler product I ever came across with Powerflite
never had any troubles, either.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:35:13 UTC, DeserTBoB >
wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:52:40 -0500, "Count Floyd"
> <CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater> wrote:
>
> >This makes me appreciate my FluidDrive even more! I wish that
> >Chrysler would come back with that one, gives me the option of
> >clutching or not! <snip>
>
> I had a girlfriend in my late teens who always drove Grandma's '53 De
> Soto with Fluid Drive on dates, so I know that box a little bit. Like
> anything with Chrysler transmissions, it seemed to be troublefree. I
> remember it had very nice black and white paint and a HUGE back seat.
Before I got my 1940 Royal coupe, I had a 49 Windsor sedan with
FluidDrive. It was the dual-range, two lower speeds, two high speeds.
Always kept it in high range, just required me to lift my foot and a
little "clunk" and I was good to go. It was a little slow off the
mark, considering that the Windsor weighed in at over 4,000 lbs.! but
it sure was smooth! My Grandfather had a 51 Dodge with FluidDrive and
I don't think he ever used the clutch except to get started initially!

> I never did get a convincing bit of data about which two speed was
> better overall...Powerflite or Chevy's lousy "Powerslide." Seems
> every '55 and '56 Chrysler product I ever came across with Powerflite
> never had any troubles, either.


--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:16:53 -0500, "Count Floyd"
<CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater> wrote:

>Before I got my 1940 Royal coupe, I had a 49 Windsor sedan with
>FluidDrive. It was the dual-range, two lower speeds, two high speeds.
> Always kept it in high range, just required me to lift my foot and a
>little "clunk" and I was good to go. It was a little slow off the
>mark, considering that the Windsor weighed in at over 4,000 lbs.! but
>it sure was smooth! My Grandfather had a 51 Dodge with FluidDrive and
>I don't think he ever used the clutch except to get started initially! <snip>

The problem with Fluid Drive in the era of HydraMatic, Fordomatic and
Powerslide, was that in order to use the transmission to best
advantage, one had to have half a brain. Certain people don't like to
think, and those are the ones who thought poorly of Fluid Drive, I'm
sure. I remember as a kid a niece of my grandaunt drove a '54 Savoy
(lemon yellow with white top as I remember) from Lincoln, NE to
Riverside, CA, with Fluid Drive. I remember sitting in the front
room, listening to the conversation about how she wouldn't trade her
Plymouth for anything from GM, even a Cadillac!

I can't remember the details, but evidently the flathead six in the
Plymouth had turned in very respectable fuel economy on that trip. She
and her mother DID complain, quite a bit, about those awful moutain
grades coming out west, though! Years later, when I had my first car,
a 1950 Ford Fordor Custom my dad had bought new off the assembly line
at the old Long Beach, CA plant, I wondered why the Ford V8, at 100
HP, produced less power and ate more gas than the Chrysler flattie
sixes. My Ford would be hard pressed to turn in 16 on the road, while
similar Plymouths would easily get 19 or more. Hell, Ford's OWN 6 for
1950 had five more horsepower than the supposedly "legendary" V8! It
would go away finally in '53 with a scant 110 HP, while sixes were
producing more. So much for "V8 power!" Of course, the undersquare
OHVs would fix that problem once and for all time.

As any reader can see, so much for DeserTBob's short-lived
"pro-American" attitude towards old cars !! About a week ago he was
here posting away quacking about a ' 55 Dodge he supposedly had a $500
deposit on. Now he is bashing all the American Big Three- because in
reality, he's an unemployed dirtbag ricer who drives a ****box 1978
Honda.

And he obviously didn't hear about the upcoming GM-Ford merger.

We'll see how the riceboys like competing with that behemoth of a
corporation.

If the ricers are so great, how come GM is still #1 after ALL THESE
YEARS ?

Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

Art wrote:
> What I can't understand about Ford and GM and even Chrysler, before giving
> everything up and firing a huge number of employees, why not address the
> quality issue by offering a free extended bumper to bumper service agreement
> with each new car sold. Not this driveline warranty BS that everyone knows
> won't actually pay for anything that is likely to break. Seems to me an
> extended service agreement for free would be less drastic than slowly going
> out of business. And in the mean time they could improve quality of bread
> and butter components like alterantors, speed sensors and the like. The
> crap that drives American car buyers crazy.

Where the heck have you been ? GM just offered a 100,000 mile 5-year
guarantee on all their cars- didn't you see the ads ?

Are you saying Toyota and Nissan are better cars ?? That's a laugh !
You actually prefer those plastic ****boxes ?

Art wrote:
> What I can't understand about Ford and GM and even Chrysler, before giving
> everything up and firing a huge number of employees, why not address the
> quality issue by offering a free extended bumper to bumper service agreement
> with each new car sold. Not this driveline warranty BS that everyone knows
> won't actually pay for anything that is likely to break. Seems to me an
> extended service agreement for free would be less drastic than slowly going
> out of business. And in the mean time they could improve quality of bread
> and butter components like alterantors, speed sensors and the like. The
> crap that drives American car buyers crazy.


the dumb ass who made the OP failed to say, Ford went to #3 in sales,
and Toyota is #2 now in USA- which is understandable since they have
many plants here in the USA now.

duty-honor-country wrote:
> As any reader can see, so much for DeserTBob's short-lived
> "pro-American" attitude towards old cars !! About a week ago he was
> here posting away quacking about a ' 55 Dodge he supposedly had a $500
> deposit on. Now he is bashing all the American Big Three- because in
> reality, he's an unemployed dirtbag ricer who drives a ****box 1978
> Honda.
>
> And he obviously didn't hear about the upcoming GM-Ford merger.

> We'll see how the riceboys like competing with that behemoth of a
> corporation.
>
> If the ricers are so great, how come GM is still #1 after ALL THESE
> YEARS ?

Why the talks with Ford then?


>
> Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

Yeah, like why would Ford and GM even talk unless they were getting
their asses kicked, like you on Usenet.

On 19 Sep 2006 05:09:01 -0700, Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA, aka
"duty-honor-country" (who never served a day of his worthless life in
the military) > wrote:

Hey idiot stick..."merger" is not a verb. The word is
"merge"...moron.

>And he obviously didn't hear about the upcoming GM-Ford merger. <snip>

A merger like this is a marriage of losers, similar to the
Pennsylvania/New York Central merger of 1968. Both PRR and NYC were
broke, and combining the two made the situation even worse. For more
on this complete disaster, read the book, "The Wreck Of The Penn
Central," and you'll see just how incompetent and greedy American
management and investors really are. As it turned out, the Penn
Central had to be scooped up by the Carter Administration and be put
into working order, and the resultant Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail) turned out to be one of the best run railroads in the
country under government ownership. However, the Repukes, under Bush
The Dumber, simply handed it off, after all that taxpayer investment,
to CSX and Norfolk Southern, the former being a HUGE Republican
political cash cow. NS, being the home of the Brothers Claytor (W.
Graham Claytor, former president of Amtrak, was Carter's Secretary of
the Navy and lifelong Democrat) was thrown some crumbs to quell
political rancor on the Hill. The original Bush/Rove plan was to let
CSX have ALL of Conrail as a reward for helping get the village idiot
elected. To keep Union Pacific quiet, they were given Southern
Pacific, despite anti-competition claims from BNSF and Kansas City
Southern and numerous feeder short line operators.

>We'll see how the riceboys like competing with that behemoth of a
>corporation. <snip>

Big corporations in the US fail quickly. Just look what happened to
GM, Ford, AT&T, Eastman Kodak, Sunbeam...any of them...gone or dying
due to shareholder greed and incompetent management..
>
>If the ricers are so great, how come GM is still #1 after ALL THESE
>YEARS ? <snip>

Toyota will pass them in the '07 model year. GM's market share has
been shrinking ever since they started foisting ****ty cars on the US
public in the early '70s.
>
>Things that make you go hmmmmm..... <snip>

You, maybe, being a paranoid delusional right wing nutbag like you,
Noodles. To me, it's just simple logic...GM's dying, and will take a
dying Ford down with it if this merger is approved...which it won't be
for Sherman Anti-Trust Act violations. DaimlerChrysler and possible a
number of the lesser Asian manufacturers with US plants will sue and
be successful in Federal court in stopping any such "merger."

As usual, Charlie Nudo is talking through his ass, since his brain is
too scrambled to know the difference between his anus and his mouth.
Must be comical watching him try to eat!