Ford gets a clue

Reviving the Taurus nameplate won't make for a better car on it's own.
It will likely get people to the showroom as there are millions upon
millions of satisfied previous Taurus owners that would consider that
model for their next purchase. Consumers relate to model names very
heavily and hey are supposed to signify a car/truck's purpose with just
a single word. When I hear the word "Taurus" I think of a reasonable
priced, good quality, good value family sedan. When people hear the
number "500" they don't know what that is supposed to convey because the
car has no history or consumer based established. IMO, killing the
Taurus was one of the most bone headed moves I have seen Ford make. It
is the equivalent of killing the Mustang and maybe even worse since the
Taurus was one of their bread and butter models. What's next? They
kill off the Explorer and the F150?

w_tom wrote:
> Posts ignore numerous facts that 'professional spokesmen'
> intentionally forget to mention.
>
> For example, when Henry Ford ran the company, then cars were
> designed by accountants. Costs were high and Ford made no profits.
> When Don Petersen took over, then engineers were told to design the
> best they could. "Yes we are designing to get through cost
> controls". No. They were in charge - not MBA school graduates.
> Accountants no longer were the designers. Ford engineers designed the
> 1964 Mustang. Next car designed by engineers was what? Henry Ford
> was removed in 1981. Anything takes 4 to 10 years to design.
> Therefore this car came out in 1987 - Ford Taurus. First car designed
> by engineers in 22 years. The car that saved Ford Motor and was
> profitable ... because it was not designed by cost controllers.
>
> Every time the engineers replaced a defective product, they also
> changed the name. Bronco was designed by accountants. Explorer was
> the new name because it was designed by engineers. Tempo and Topaz by
> accountants. Contour, Mondeo and Mystic were engineer replacements.
> However Mustang and T-bird names remained because those original
> models were designed by 'car guys'.
>
> Unfortunately Ford has this idea that changing the name of a poor
> design - the 500 - will increase sales? Bean counter thinking.
>
> Basic to all cars are fundamental numbers - horsepower per liter.
> Auto companies are losing market share have defective products - do
> not have 70 Hp per liter engines as standard. Ford and GM both have
> this problem created by business school 'cost control' mentalities..
> Both companies must put two extra pistons in every car. Accounting is
> again doing the designing - therefore increasing costs. Ford and GM
> must put two extra pistons in every car just to do same horsepower as
> everyone else. A Ford or GM V-8 is necessary to do what innovative
> and therefore American patriotic companies do with a V-6.
>
> Do the numbers yourself. Do all engines in that car do 70 Hp/
> liter? That defined patriotic American. American patriots who
> believe in free markets buy the best - and that means 70 Hp/liter for
> fuel injection.
>
> Extra pistons, fuel injectors, manifolds, ignition systems, more
> block, more cam and crank lobes, more car around a bigger engine, more
> suspensions and larger tires. All this means the anti-American car
> costs more. And so GM and Ford have no profits. A 52 Hp/liter engine
> also means other parts of the vehicle are also poorly designed - or
> what happens when accounting does the design.
>
> Therein lies the major indicator that both Ford and GM are now
> making inferior products. Meanwhile innovative and therefore (by
> definition) American patriotic auto companies now have numerous fuel
> injected models that do 80 and higher horsepower per liter. IOW they
> innovate as any patriotic American would. Ford and GM cost control -
> stifle innovation - as any anti-American would.
>
> Another myth is Ford and GM legacy costs. What do they forget to
> mention? The day that employee retired, then pension funds and health
> care funds were fully funded. The day that employee retires, then the
> company has no further payments to that employee retirement. But Ford
> and GM hope you don't think. They blame legacy costs on retirees
> hoping you will not ask some embarrassing questions. Those legacy
> costs exist only if MBA executives (who also did not have driver's
> licenses) made yesteryears profits look larger by underfunding those
> pension and health care funds. In GM's case, that underfunding was
> about $7billion. Money instead used to claim profits that did not
> exist. This is how an MBA student without a driver's license becomes
> the top auto executive.
>
> Why were profits missing? Their 1980 and 1990 cars cost too much to
> build - even with two extra pistons in every engine because 'bean
> counters' - not 'car guys' designed the product. "No problem" says
> the MBA. "We will fund that pension fund next year and I will reap a
> bonus!"
>
> They do these things, then spin them with half truths, because you
> don't ask embarrassing questions. You did not even do simple
> arithmetic. Most embarrassing number is 70 Horsepower per liter.
> What would a 5.0 liter Mustang do if it was only average performance?
> 350 horsepower. What did the 5.0 liter Mustang do? 205 Horsepower or
> a pathetic 41 horsepower per liter. That is low performance. But
> Ford knew they could hype the words 'high performance' and the naive
> would not do simple arithmetic. Ford needs naïve customers who don't
> ask embarrasssing questions. Is a trend becoming obvious yet?
>
> Well all cars in patriotic auto companies do 70 horsepower per
> liter. Turbo charged do 85. Supercharged do 100. Some patriotic
> auto companies now do 80 and 90 HP/liter with only fuel injection. HP/
> liter defined high performance. What does the Mustang do? What do
> all Fords do? GM has a supercharged engine sold in models that end in
> SS ... that only does 65 horsepower per liter. But they call it
> high performance - and the dumb will buy it.
>
> Damning numbers. Supercharge means 100 or more horsepower per
> liter. But GM, like Ford, is left to sell to fools - the naive. Only
> a fool would buy a supercharged car that only does 65 horsepower per
> liter - then believe those lies about legacy costs. But many only
> listen to advertisements - and remain fools of that propaganda.
>
> Above introduces why Ford and GM are losing money. Those are
> classic symptoms of cars design by MBA school graduates - the 'bean
> counters'. When cars are designed by 'car guys', then costs decrease
> AND the 70 Hp/liter engine exists in all models.
>
> Thank god that foreigners are selling cars here. After all, the 70
> Horsepower per liter engine was developed in the early 1970 in GM,
> detailed in Popular Science, Mar 1990, page 82, and kept out of
> America by companies that stifle innovation. Why? Patriotic auto
> companies would have that 70 Hp per liter technology in cars in 1992.
> So here we are in 2007. What cars from Ford and GM have 70 or more
> horsepower per liter engines? Does the word 'none' sound familiar?
> This is why patriots - people who believe in free markets - buy the
> best and get 'rescued American technologies' in their cars. This is
> why Toyota, et al are taking market share from 'cost controlled and
> anti-innovation' car companies that are still using 1970 and 1980
> technologies. 70 HP/liter is a damning number that says why Ford and
> GM need bankruptcy. Bankruptcy saves worker jobs by firing defective
> top management. GM and Ford are dominated by those who stifle
> innovation - MBAs and lawyers. Bankruptcy eliminates the enemies of
> American workers and replaces them with 'people who come from where
> the work gets done' - also called 'car guys'.
>
> Nothing new was posted above. Too many listen to the 'professional
> spokesman' rather than talk to engineers - the 'car guys'. 1987 Ford
> Taurus - first car designed by engineers in Ford in 22 years. Only
> those who hated Ford would not know all this. Only those who hated
> Fords would listen to lies from company MBAs and lawyers. 70
> Horsepower per liter is how a patriot - one who demands innovation -
> sees a problem before profits are lost. 70 Horsepower per liter
> define why foreign automakers are, by definition, better American
> patriots. After all, they (not Ford and GM) use the technologies
> developed by American innovators. Ford and GM still don't have that
> 30 year old technology in all products.
>
> On Feb 6, 7:54 pm, "Kruse" > wrote:
>> Yea, I know.
>> What started all this is when the government allowed foreign
>> manufactures to build in the US. While the domestics had to pay for
>> health care for aging workers, the foreign makers hired young
>> employees that cost them virtually nothing give them insurance. And
>> while the foreign makers can take a foreign-built part and simply
>> paint it or put a sticker on it and call it domestically made, that
>> isn't right either.
>> It also isn't right that Ford can built a transmission/engine/whatever
>> halfway around the world and make it cheaper than they can
>> domestically.
>> I will never buy a new Fusion or Focus. I can also say that while I
>> have purchased new Fords in the past, I probably never will in the
>> future.
>> Maybe Ford should just have their cars built domestically by a foreign
>
>

The worst part is the 500 is the nicest sedan Ford has offered in 40 years!
If you haven't test driven one you don't have a clue. Go to the dealer and
drive one on the same day you drive a Crown Vic, a Taurus and a Mustang.
The 500 Sedan is leaps and bounds ahead and like I said, the best put
together sedan package Ford has offered in 40 plus years.

I was waiting for the 265 horse 3.5 liter to come out in it next year. I am
****ed that they are going to re-badge it and call it Taurus. I agree with
you that Ford is stupid for dropping successful name plates! I see this
"oops, we are total bumbling IDIOTS and are going to rename a new car model
because we can pull our heads out of our asses" approach as the epitome of
incompetence. Renaming existing models is even more of a marketing mistake
than dropping successful name plates.

I was looking at the new Mercury Zephyr, because I have an attachment to
that name. Then Ford decides to rename it some stupid number/initial scheme
(if I wanted a Mazda I would not be shopping with Ford). That silly
incompetence takes that car off my list. My wife and I had effectively
decided on a 2008 Ford 500 with the more powerful engine. Then along comes
Ford with their stupid incompetent "Duh we have no friggin clue what we are
doing" name change scheme again.

I would have been buying a 2008 Ford 500 AWD.
I won't be buying a 2008 Ford 500 renamed as a Taurus.

If/when they rename the 500, I will be shopping for our new family sedan
from the entire market. I might as well go with a BMW and get all of the
amenities and the MANUAL TRANSMISSION I really want.

Ford better get a good plan in place and implement it. All this foolish
bumbling around is going to KILL them!

Between their totally fumbling the 2007 Shelby GT500 and this idiotic model
name plate blundering, Ford has about stretched my loyalty to it's limit.



"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Reviving the Taurus nameplate won't make for a better car on it's own. It
> will likely get people to the showroom as there are millions upon millions
> of satisfied previous Taurus owners that would consider that model for
> their next purchase. Consumers relate to model names very heavily and hey
> are supposed to signify a car/truck's purpose with just a single word.
> When I hear the word "Taurus" I think of a reasonable priced, good
> quality, good value family sedan. When people hear the number "500" they
> don't know what that is supposed to convey because the car has no history
> or consumer based established. IMO, killing the Taurus was one of the
> most bone headed moves I have seen Ford make. It is the equivalent of
> killing the Mustang and maybe even worse since the Taurus was one of their
> bread and butter models. What's next? They kill off the Explorer and the
> F150?
>
> w_tom wrote:
>> Posts ignore numerous facts that 'professional spokesmen'
>> intentionally forget to mention.
>>
>> For example, when Henry Ford ran the company, then cars were
>> designed by accountants. Costs were high and Ford made no profits.
>> When Don Petersen took over, then engineers were told to design the
>> best they could. "Yes we are designing to get through cost
>> controls". No. They were in charge - not MBA school graduates.
>> Accountants no longer were the designers. Ford engineers designed the
>> 1964 Mustang. Next car designed by engineers was what? Henry Ford
>> was removed in 1981. Anything takes 4 to 10 years to design.
>> Therefore this car came out in 1987 - Ford Taurus. First car designed
>> by engineers in 22 years. The car that saved Ford Motor and was
>> profitable ... because it was not designed by cost controllers.
>>
>> Every time the engineers replaced a defective product, they also
>> changed the name. Bronco was designed by accountants. Explorer was
>> the new name because it was designed by engineers. Tempo and Topaz by
>> accountants. Contour, Mondeo and Mystic were engineer replacements.
>> However Mustang and T-bird names remained because those original
>> models were designed by 'car guys'.
>>
>> Unfortunately Ford has this idea that changing the name of a poor
>> design - the 500 - will increase sales? Bean counter thinking.
>>
>> Basic to all cars are fundamental numbers - horsepower per liter.
>> Auto companies are losing market share have defective products - do
>> not have 70 Hp per liter engines as standard. Ford and GM both have
>> this problem created by business school 'cost control' mentalities..
>> Both companies must put two extra pistons in every car. Accounting is
>> again doing the designing - therefore increasing costs. Ford and GM
>> must put two extra pistons in every car just to do same horsepower as
>> everyone else. A Ford or GM V-8 is necessary to do what innovative
>> and therefore American patriotic companies do with a V-6.
>>
>> Do the numbers yourself. Do all engines in that car do 70 Hp/
>> liter? That defined patriotic American. American patriots who
>> believe in free markets buy the best - and that means 70 Hp/liter for
>> fuel injection.
>>
>> Extra pistons, fuel injectors, manifolds, ignition systems, more
>> block, more cam and crank lobes, more car around a bigger engine, more
>> suspensions and larger tires. All this means the anti-American car
>> costs more. And so GM and Ford have no profits. A 52 Hp/liter engine
>> also means other parts of the vehicle are also poorly designed - or
>> what happens when accounting does the design.
>>
>> Therein lies the major indicator that both Ford and GM are now
>> making inferior products. Meanwhile innovative and therefore (by
>> definition) American patriotic auto companies now have numerous fuel
>> injected models that do 80 and higher horsepower per liter. IOW they
>> innovate as any patriotic American would. Ford and GM cost control -
>> stifle innovation - as any anti-American would.
>>
>> Another myth is Ford and GM legacy costs. What do they forget to
>> mention? The day that employee retired, then pension funds and health
>> care funds were fully funded. The day that employee retires, then the
>> company has no further payments to that employee retirement. But Ford
>> and GM hope you don't think. They blame legacy costs on retirees
>> hoping you will not ask some embarrassing questions. Those legacy
>> costs exist only if MBA executives (who also did not have driver's
>> licenses) made yesteryears profits look larger by underfunding those
>> pension and health care funds. In GM's case, that underfunding was
>> about $7billion. Money instead used to claim profits that did not
>> exist. This is how an MBA student without a driver's license becomes
>> the top auto executive.
>>
>> Why were profits missing? Their 1980 and 1990 cars cost too much to
>> build - even with two extra pistons in every engine because 'bean
>> counters' - not 'car guys' designed the product. "No problem" says
>> the MBA. "We will fund that pension fund next year and I will reap a
>> bonus!"
>>
>> They do these things, then spin them with half truths, because you
>> don't ask embarrassing questions. You did not even do simple
>> arithmetic. Most embarrassing number is 70 Horsepower per liter.
>> What would a 5.0 liter Mustang do if it was only average performance?
>> 350 horsepower. What did the 5.0 liter Mustang do? 205 Horsepower or
>> a pathetic 41 horsepower per liter. That is low performance. But
>> Ford knew they could hype the words 'high performance' and the naive
>> would not do simple arithmetic. Ford needs naïve customers who don't
>> ask embarrasssing questions. Is a trend becoming obvious yet?
>>
>> Well all cars in patriotic auto companies do 70 horsepower per
>> liter. Turbo charged do 85. Supercharged do 100. Some patriotic
>> auto companies now do 80 and 90 HP/liter with only fuel injection. HP/
>> liter defined high performance. What does the Mustang do? What do
>> all Fords do? GM has a supercharged engine sold in models that end in
>> SS ... that only does 65 horsepower per liter. But they call it
>> high performance - and the dumb will buy it.
>>
>> Damning numbers. Supercharge means 100 or more horsepower per
>> liter. But GM, like Ford, is left to sell to fools - the naive. Only
>> a fool would buy a supercharged car that only does 65 horsepower per
>> liter - then believe those lies about legacy costs. But many only
>> listen to advertisements - and remain fools of that propaganda.
>>
>> Above introduces why Ford and GM are losing money. Those are
>> classic symptoms of cars design by MBA school graduates - the 'bean
>> counters'. When cars are designed by 'car guys', then costs decrease
>> AND the 70 Hp/liter engine exists in all models.
>>
>> Thank god that foreigners are selling cars here. After all, the 70
>> Horsepower per liter engine was developed in the early 1970 in GM,
>> detailed in Popular Science, Mar 1990, page 82, and kept out of
>> America by companies that stifle innovation. Why? Patriotic auto
>> companies would have that 70 Hp per liter technology in cars in 1992.
>> So here we are in 2007. What cars from Ford and GM have 70 or more
>> horsepower per liter engines? Does the word 'none' sound familiar?
>> This is why patriots - people who believe in free markets - buy the
>> best and get 'rescued American technologies' in their cars. This is
>> why Toyota, et al are taking market share from 'cost controlled and
>> anti-innovation' car companies that are still using 1970 and 1980
>> technologies. 70 HP/liter is a damning number that says why Ford and
>> GM need bankruptcy. Bankruptcy saves worker jobs by firing defective
>> top management. GM and Ford are dominated by those who stifle
>> innovation - MBAs and lawyers. Bankruptcy eliminates the enemies of
>> American workers and replaces them with 'people who come from where
>> the work gets done' - also called 'car guys'.
>>
>> Nothing new was posted above. Too many listen to the 'professional
>> spokesman' rather than talk to engineers - the 'car guys'. 1987 Ford
>> Taurus - first car designed by engineers in Ford in 22 years. Only
>> those who hated Ford would not know all this. Only those who hated
>> Fords would listen to lies from company MBAs and lawyers. 70
>> Horsepower per liter is how a patriot - one who demands innovation -
>> sees a problem before profits are lost. 70 Horsepower per liter
>> define why foreign automakers are, by definition, better American
>> patriots. After all, they (not Ford and GM) use the technologies
>> developed by American innovators. Ford and GM still don't have that
>> 30 year old technology in all products.
>>
>> On Feb 6, 7:54 pm, "Kruse" > wrote:
>>> Yea, I know.
>>> What started all this is when the government allowed foreign
>>> manufactures to build in the US. While the domestics had to pay for
>>> health care for aging workers, the foreign makers hired young
>>> employees that cost them virtually nothing give them insurance. And
>>> while the foreign makers can take a foreign-built part and simply
>>> paint it or put a sticker on it and call it domestically made, that
>>> isn't right either.
>>> It also isn't right that Ford can built a transmission/engine/whatever
>>> halfway around the world and make it cheaper than they can
>>> domestically.
>>> I will never buy a new Fusion or Focus. I can also say that while I
>>> have purchased new Fords in the past, I probably never will in the
>>> future.
>>> Maybe Ford should just have their cars built domestically by a foreign
>>

In article <8N3zh.222$E71.28@trnddc04>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:

> I was waiting for the 265 horse 3.5 liter to come out in it next year. I am
> ****ed that they are going to re-badge it and call it Taurus. I agree with
> you that Ford is stupid for dropping successful name plates!

They should just roll it into the Taurus 500.

Calling the car '500' was just stpuid. Ford traditionally used 500 as a
suffix to the model name. Fairlane 500, Galaxie 500XL, etc.

> If/when they rename the 500, I will be shopping for our new family sedan
> from the entire market. I might as well go with a BMW and get all of the
> amenities and the MANUAL TRANSMISSION I really want.

My first swipe takes everything that doesn't offer a manual transmission
off the list. That cuts the market choices down real quick.

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> The worst part is the 500 is the nicest sedan Ford has offered in 40 years!
> If you haven't test driven one you don't have a clue. Go to the dealer and
> drive one on the same day you drive a Crown Vic, a Taurus and a Mustang.
> The 500 Sedan is leaps and bounds ahead and like I said, the best put
> together sedan package Ford has offered in 40 plus years.

We have a last generation Sable and it is has shown to be a very good,
dependable car. With the Duratech engine it is also quite peppy. IMO,
there was nothing wrong with the Taurus/Sable that warranted their
termination. Plus we bought it with every option (leather, power
moonroof, Mach sound system, CD changer, power everything etc.) for
under $20k of the showroom floor. It was definitely decent competition
for the Camry.

> I was waiting for the 265 horse 3.5 liter to come out in it next year. I am
> ****ed that they are going to re-badge it and call it Taurus. I agree with
> you that Ford is stupid for dropping successful name plates! I see this
> "oops, we are total bumbling IDIOTS and are going to rename a new car model
> because we can pull our heads out of our asses" approach as the epitome of
> incompetence. Renaming existing models is even more of a marketing mistake
> than dropping successful name plates.

I don't put that much emphasis on the name. I haven't driven a 500 but
then I don't think Ford's cars are even close to bed. On the contrary
they are quite good. They just have no marketing sense.

> I was looking at the new Mercury Zephyr, because I have an attachment to
> that name. Then Ford decides to rename it some stupid number/initial scheme
> (if I wanted a Mazda I would not be shopping with Ford). That silly
> incompetence takes that car off my list. My wife and I had effectively
> decided on a 2008 Ford 500 with the more powerful engine. Then along comes
> Ford with their stupid incompetent "Duh we have no friggin clue what we are
> doing" name change scheme again.
>
> I would have been buying a 2008 Ford 500 AWD.
> I won't be buying a 2008 Ford 500 renamed as a Taurus.

IMO, Ford should roll out a new car that is slightly smaller than the
500 as the new Taurus and keep the 500 as an upgrade alternative. Then
do an advertising blitz to introduce the "modernized" Taurus. Roll out
a hybrid (all the rage these days) and put some good technology behind
it. Green sells nowadays.

> If/when they rename the 500, I will be shopping for our new family sedan
> from the entire market. I might as well go with a BMW and get all of the
> amenities and the MANUAL TRANSMISSION I really want.

I wonder if the potential monetary gain from offering a manual tranny is
worth the added R&D and manufacturing costs.

> Ford better get a good plan in place and implement it. All this foolish
> bumbling around is going to KILL them!

I don't see how they can afford a "new" plan. The time to turn the
500's legacy into into that of a Taurus would be years and years. I bet
Ford has 2-3 years to turn things around at most. IMO, they can't do it
with new model names no matter how good the cars are engineered.

> Between their totally fumbling the 2007 Shelby GT500 and this idiotic model
> name plate blundering, Ford has about stretched my loyalty to it's limit.

They are really trying my patience too. If they don't produce the
number of GT500s they advertised then I am likely done buying Fords.

> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Reviving the Taurus nameplate won't make for a better car on it's own. It
>> will likely get people to the showroom as there are millions upon millions
>> of satisfied previous Taurus owners that would consider that model for
>> their next purchase. Consumers relate to model names very heavily and hey
>> are supposed to signify a car/truck's purpose with just a single word.
>> When I hear the word "Taurus" I think of a reasonable priced, good
>> quality, good value family sedan. When people hear the number "500" they
>> don't know what that is supposed to convey because the car has no history
>> or consumer based established. IMO, killing the Taurus was one of the
>> most bone headed moves I have seen Ford make. It is the equivalent of
>> killing the Mustang and maybe even worse since the Taurus was one of their
>> bread and butter models. What's next? They kill off the Explorer and the
>> F150?
>>
>> w_tom wrote:
>>> Posts ignore numerous facts that 'professional spokesmen'
>>> intentionally forget to mention.
>>>
>>> For example, when Henry Ford ran the company, then cars were
>>> designed by accountants. Costs were high and Ford made no profits.
>>> When Don Petersen took over, then engineers were told to design the
>>> best they could. "Yes we are designing to get through cost
>>> controls". No. They were in charge - not MBA school graduates.
>>> Accountants no longer were the designers. Ford engineers designed the
>>> 1964 Mustang. Next car designed by engineers was what? Henry Ford
>>> was removed in 1981. Anything takes 4 to 10 years to design.
>>> Therefore this car came out in 1987 - Ford Taurus. First car designed
>>> by engineers in 22 years. The car that saved Ford Motor and was
>>> profitable ... because it was not designed by cost controllers.
>>>
>>> Every time the engineers replaced a defective product, they also
>>> changed the name. Bronco was designed by accountants. Explorer was
>>> the new name because it was designed by engineers. Tempo and Topaz by
>>> accountants. Contour, Mondeo and Mystic were engineer replacements.
>>> However Mustang and T-bird names remained because those original
>>> models were designed by 'car guys'.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately Ford has this idea that changing the name of a poor
>>> design - the 500 - will increase sales? Bean counter thinking.
>>>
>>> Basic to all cars are fundamental numbers - horsepower per liter.
>>> Auto companies are losing market share have defective products - do
>>> not have 70 Hp per liter engines as standard. Ford and GM both have
>>> this problem created by business school 'cost control' mentalities..
>>> Both companies must put two extra pistons in every car. Accounting is
>>> again doing the designing - therefore increasing costs. Ford and GM
>>> must put two extra pistons in every car just to do same horsepower as
>>> everyone else. A Ford or GM V-8 is necessary to do what innovative
>>> and therefore American patriotic companies do with a V-6.
>>>
>>> Do the numbers yourself. Do all engines in that car do 70 Hp/
>>> liter? That defined patriotic American. American patriots who
>>> believe in free markets buy the best - and that means 70 Hp/liter for
>>> fuel injection.
>>>
>>> Extra pistons, fuel injectors, manifolds, ignition systems, more
>>> block, more cam and crank lobes, more car around a bigger engine, more
>>> suspensions and larger tires. All this means the anti-American car
>>> costs more. And so GM and Ford have no profits. A 52 Hp/liter engine
>>> also means other parts of the vehicle are also poorly designed - or
>>> what happens when accounting does the design.
>>>
>>> Therein lies the major indicator that both Ford and GM are now
>>> making inferior products. Meanwhile innovative and therefore (by
>>> definition) American patriotic auto companies now have numerous fuel
>>> injected models that do 80 and higher horsepower per liter. IOW they
>>> innovate as any patriotic American would. Ford and GM cost control -
>>> stifle innovation - as any anti-American would.
>>>
>>> Another myth is Ford and GM legacy costs. What do they forget to
>>> mention? The day that employee retired, then pension funds and health
>>> care funds were fully funded. The day that employee retires, then the
>>> company has no further payments to that employee retirement. But Ford
>>> and GM hope you don't think. They blame legacy costs on retirees
>>> hoping you will not ask some embarrassing questions. Those legacy
>>> costs exist only if MBA executives (who also did not have driver's
>>> licenses) made yesteryears profits look larger by underfunding those
>>> pension and health care funds. In GM's case, that underfunding was
>>> about $7billion. Money instead used to claim profits that did not
>>> exist. This is how an MBA student without a driver's license becomes
>>> the top auto executive.
>>>
>>> Why were profits missing? Their 1980 and 1990 cars cost too much to
>>> build - even with two extra pistons in every engine because 'bean
>>> counters' - not 'car guys' designed the product. "No problem" says
>>> the MBA. "We will fund that pension fund next year and I will reap a
>>> bonus!"
>>>
>>> They do these things, then spin them with half truths, because you
>>> don't ask embarrassing questions. You did not even do simple
>>> arithmetic. Most embarrassing number is 70 Horsepower per liter.
>>> What would a 5.0 liter Mustang do if it was only average performance?
>>> 350 horsepower. What did the 5.0 liter Mustang do? 205 Horsepower or
>>> a pathetic 41 horsepower per liter. That is low performance. But
>>> Ford knew they could hype the words 'high performance' and the naive
>>> would not do simple arithmetic. Ford needs naïve customers who don't
>>> ask embarrasssing questions. Is a trend becoming obvious yet?
>>>
>>> Well all cars in patriotic auto companies do 70 horsepower per
>>> liter. Turbo charged do 85. Supercharged do 100. Some patriotic
>>> auto companies now do 80 and 90 HP/liter with only fuel injection. HP/
>>> liter defined high performance. What does the Mustang do? What do
>>> all Fords do? GM has a supercharged engine sold in models that end in
>>> SS ... that only does 65 horsepower per liter. But they call it
>>> high performance - and the dumb will buy it.
>>>
>>> Damning numbers. Supercharge means 100 or more horsepower per
>>> liter. But GM, like Ford, is left to sell to fools - the naive. Only
>>> a fool would buy a supercharged car that only does 65 horsepower per
>>> liter - then believe those lies about legacy costs. But many only
>>> listen to advertisements - and remain fools of that propaganda.
>>>
>>> Above introduces why Ford and GM are losing money. Those are
>>> classic symptoms of cars design by MBA school graduates - the 'bean
>>> counters'. When cars are designed by 'car guys', then costs decrease
>>> AND the 70 Hp/liter engine exists in all models.
>>>
>>> Thank god that foreigners are selling cars here. After all, the 70
>>> Horsepower per liter engine was developed in the early 1970 in GM,
>>> detailed in Popular Science, Mar 1990, page 82, and kept out of
>>> America by companies that stifle innovation. Why? Patriotic auto
>>> companies would have that 70 Hp per liter technology in cars in 1992.
>>> So here we are in 2007. What cars from Ford and GM have 70 or more
>>> horsepower per liter engines? Does the word 'none' sound familiar?
>>> This is why patriots - people who believe in free markets - buy the
>>> best and get 'rescued American technologies' in their cars. This is
>>> why Toyota, et al are taking market share from 'cost controlled and
>>> anti-innovation' car companies that are still using 1970 and 1980
>>> technologies. 70 HP/liter is a damning number that says why Ford and
>>> GM need bankruptcy. Bankruptcy saves worker jobs by firing defective
>>> top management. GM and Ford are dominated by those who stifle
>>> innovation - MBAs and lawyers. Bankruptcy eliminates the enemies of
>>> American workers and replaces them with 'people who come from where
>>> the work gets done' - also called 'car guys'.
>>>
>>> Nothing new was posted above. Too many listen to the 'professional
>>> spokesman' rather than talk to engineers - the 'car guys'. 1987 Ford
>>> Taurus - first car designed by engineers in Ford in 22 years. Only
>>> those who hated Ford would not know all this. Only those who hated
>>> Fords would listen to lies from company MBAs and lawyers. 70
>>> Horsepower per liter is how a patriot - one who demands innovation -
>>> sees a problem before profits are lost. 70 Horsepower per liter
>>> define why foreign automakers are, by definition, better American
>>> patriots. After all, they (not Ford and GM) use the technologies
>>> developed by American innovators. Ford and GM still don't have that
>>> 30 year old technology in all products.
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 7:54 pm, "Kruse" > wrote:
>>>> Yea, I know.
>>>> What started all this is when the government allowed foreign
>>>> manufactures to build in the US. While the domestics had to pay for
>>>> health care for aging workers, the foreign makers hired young
>>>> employees that cost them virtually nothing give them insurance. And
>>>> while the foreign makers can take a foreign-built part and simply
>>>> paint it or put a sticker on it and call it domestically made, that
>>>> isn't right either.
>>>> It also isn't right that Ford can built a transmission/engine/whatever
>>>> halfway around the world and make it cheaper than they can
>>>> domestically.
>>>> I will never buy a new Fusion or Focus. I can also say that while I
>>>> have purchased new Fords in the past, I probably never will in the
>>>> future.
>>>> Maybe Ford should just have their cars built domestically by a foreign
>

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:

> I wonder if the potential monetary gain from offering a manual tranny is
> worth the added R&D and manufacturing costs.

In the case of the 500, it would depend if volvo offered it on that
platform. If so, the costs would be as close to zero as possible.

> Ford has 2-3 years to turn things around at most. IMO, they can't do it
> with new model names no matter how good the cars are engineered.

I keep saying it, but Ford would do well to bring the Falcon over to
compete with all the RWD sedans on the market. And keep it called a
Falcon. In fact, Ford should play on it's traditional names for new well
made, well executed cars.

>> Between their totally fumbling the 2007 Shelby GT500 and this idiotic model
>> name plate blundering, Ford has about stretched my loyalty to it's limit.

> They are really trying my patience too. If they don't produce the
> number of GT500s they advertised then I am likely done buying Fords.

It's in the dead of winter and prices are still way over sticker. The
demand is there, logically they should fill it. But the marketeers are
probably more concerned about execusivity than selling cars.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> I wonder if the potential monetary gain from offering a manual tranny is
>> worth the added R&D and manufacturing costs.
>
> In the case of the 500, it would depend if volvo offered it on that
> platform. If so, the costs would be as close to zero as possible.

I can't see there being much of a demand for manual trannies in a "for
the masses" family sedan. People who want that are going to be looking
a BMW's etc., IMO.

>> Ford has 2-3 years to turn things around at most. IMO, they can't do it
>> with new model names no matter how good the cars are engineered.
>
> I keep saying it, but Ford would do well to bring the Falcon over to
> compete with all the RWD sedans on the market. And keep it called a
> Falcon. In fact, Ford should play on it's traditional names for new well
> made, well executed cars.

The Thunderbird and Cougar are two more that have great potential.
Especially the Thunderbird.

>>> Between their totally fumbling the 2007 Shelby GT500 and this idiotic model
>>> name plate blundering, Ford has about stretched my loyalty to it's limit.
>
>> They are really trying my patience too. If they don't produce the
>> number of GT500s they advertised then I am likely done buying Fords.
>
> It's in the dead of winter and prices are still way over sticker. The
> demand is there, logically they should fill it. But the marketeers are
> probably more concerned about execusivity than selling cars.

I haven't seen any actual production numbers yet. They should have made
1,500-2,000 of them by now.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael
>> Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if the potential monetary gain from offering a manual tranny is
>>> worth the added R&D and manufacturing costs.

In the true sport sedan market, the manual transmissions are standard
equiptment and the slush boxes cost extra.

>>
>> In the case of the 500, it would depend if volvo offered it on that
>> platform. If so, the costs would be as close to zero as possible.
>
> I can't see there being much of a demand for manual trannies in a "for the
> masses" family sedan. People who want that are going to be looking a
> BMW's etc., IMO.

There is a market for it, otherwise BMW couldn't do it and charge more for
their manual transmission sports sedan than comparable competitors do. I
would much prefer to buy Ford's Volvo platform all wheel drive sedan with a
6-speed manual transmission than paying 1/3 more for the BMW.

From my prospective (I bought 3 Taurus SHO's because they were family
sedan's with some extra Oomph and a manual transaxle) I wouldn't choose the
automatic over a manual transmission in any application. I had to special
order my 2005 F-450 XLT Lariat PSD 4X4 with the 6 speed manual.


>
>>> Ford has 2-3 years to turn things around at most. IMO, they can't do it
>>> with new model names no matter how good the cars are engineered.

However they do it bumbling along and renaming existing models is NOT
helping their cause...


>>
>> I keep saying it, but Ford would do well to bring the Falcon over to
>> compete with all the RWD sedans on the market. And keep it called a
>> Falcon. In fact, Ford should play on it's traditional names for new well
>> made, well executed cars.
>
> The Thunderbird and Cougar are two more that have great potential.
> Especially the Thunderbird.
>
>>>> Between their totally fumbling the 2007 Shelby GT500 and this idiotic
>>>> model name plate blundering, Ford has about stretched my loyalty to
>>>> it's limit.
>>
>>> They are really trying my patience too. If they don't produce the
>>> number of GT500s they advertised then I am likely done buying Fords.
>>
>> It's in the dead of winter and prices are still way over sticker. The
>> demand is there, logically they should fill it. But the marketeers are
>> probably more concerned about execusivity than selling cars.
>
> I haven't seen any actual production numbers yet. They should have made
> 1,500-2,000 of them by now.

w_tom wrote:

> ...Basic to all cars are fundamental numbers - horsepower per liter.
> Auto companies are losing market share have defective products - do
> not have 70 Hp per liter engines as standard.

The 500's Duratec(from the Taurus) 3.0 is 70 Hp per liter. Sometimes
more, sometimes less depending on trim.

Rob

On Feb 9, 7:26 pm, trainfan1 > wrote:
> The 500's Duratec(from the Taurus) 3.0 is 70 Hp per liter. Sometimes
> more, sometimes less depending on trim.

That 500 engine is only 67 Hp/liter. A major improvement in Ford
(GM is still putting 52 Hp/liter engines in their base models because
Wagoner, et al are bean counters). But still not achieved is 70 when
70+ was world standard a decade ago.

Under William Clay, some engineering was restarted in Ford - since a
'bean counter' Jacques Nasser stifled innovation for four years ending
2001 (which is why first year Focus had so many reliability
problems). Still, the 500, Fusion, etc vehicles of 2007 release have
much to go to only be world equivalent. These days, any vehicle that
does not do 70 HP/liter with only fuel injection is ... well that was
the standard 10 years ago.

Base engine for a 2005 Taurus was 51 Hp/liter (153 Hp). 2006
Taurus was 52 Hp/liter (155 hp). Don't let 'bean counters' and the
ill informed fool you. Engines with the same name and same liters are
no where near same when Hp/liter is so different. Massive hardware
changes are required for the higher Hp/liter number - which is also a
reflection of vehicle life expectancy. Higher hp/liter number on a
base engine means a more reliable vehicle.

Companies dominated by accountants (bean counters) stifle innovation
in the name of cost controls. Car company run by a bean counter will
see resulting stifled innovation four and ten years later on spread
sheets. Spred sheets are a summary of work performed four to ten
years previously - not a report on work performed this year. "Bean
counters' will deny this because they do not understand and therefore
cannot measure innovation.

Under William Clay, Ford finally began addressing their pathetic
engines. What exists today had to be started at least four years ago.
Ford is not yet doing what was standard world wide 10 years ago; but
is doing much better. Those damn numbers so feared and misunderstood
by a country full of lawyers, MBAs, and communication majors. But
notice why Toyota, et al do so well. Do the numbers.

Meanwhile no one needs a 265 HP engine. Even in the 1970s, the 350
V-8 that was plenty of power was doing only 180 Hp. The only reason
one needs 200+ Hp? His ego is somehow confused with logic. Those
heavier 1970 vehicles with the large block V-8 did between 160 and 190
hp - and that was more than sufficient even with a less efficient 3
speed transmission and rear wheel drive.

"w_tom" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 9, 7:26 pm, trainfan1 > wrote:
>> The 500's Duratec(from the Taurus) 3.0 is 70 Hp per liter. Sometimes
>> more, sometimes less depending on trim.
>
> That 500 engine is only 67 Hp/liter. A major improvement in Ford
> (GM is still putting 52 Hp/liter engines in their base models because
> Wagoner, et al are bean counters). But still not achieved is 70 when
> 70+ was world standard a decade ago.
>

The 1989 Ford Taurus SHO 3.0 liter V-6 made 220 horsepower... Thats 73.3
horsepower power per liter...