Ford gets a clue

"My Name Is Nobody" > writes:

> "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...

I'm afraid you're not helping Ford's case. That was a Yamaha engine.

"Joe Pfeiffer" > wrote in message
...
> "My Name Is Nobody" > writes:
>
>> "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...
>
> I'm afraid you're not helping Ford's case. That was a Yamaha engine.


Ya, probably no more than the Ford 500/Taurus being a Volvo platform, or
Chevy being able to compete in the diesel truck market only because of Isuzu
diesel engines, or Dodge because of Cummins...

Your point?

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "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.

I don't see the new Taurus as being a sport sedan. The original SHO was
as close as Ford came to a BMW like Taurus and it certainly was no BMW.
It had its merits though. I just don't see where having a manual in
today's world for this type of car is a good economical decision. Ford
needs a Taurus that competes with the Camry and not a BMW wannabe, IMO.

>>> 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.

Personally, I think if Ford tries to make the Taurus fill too many rolls
it will have a greater chance of failure. They need a Camry killer and
not a Camry/BMW killer. Toyota has the right idea for the Camry. It is
a dependable, relatively capable, decently priced boring sedan. They
give their customers looking for basic transportation exactly what they
want. I believe most people aren't like you and I, they don't care if
the car they buy will run with a BMW 5 series sedan. Ford needs a sedan
that will sell 300,000 units annually which means it must appeal to the
milk toast masses... not the enthusiasts AND the milk toast masses.

>>>> 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 agree 100% but they should never have killed the long time models like
the Taurus, Thunderbird, Escort etc. in the first place. Funny how
their demise started when they killed them off.

>>> 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:

> 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.

Pretty damn close for a grocery-getter family sedan isn't it? It's
slightly de-tuned from the 1996-1999 figure of 71.67 Hp per liter, &
quite capable of more.

But at what RPM are the Japenese cars getting those ratings? Toyota,
Nissan, & Honda have to spin their 3.0 V-6's up over 6200 rpm to get
that "rating". It's not apples-to-apples. And the Ford engine will
deliver more peak power for longer durations than trying to keep a Honda
spinning at 5800+ rpm all day long.

Rob

On Feb 10, 11:35 pm, "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote:
> The 1989 Ford Taurus SHO 3.0 liter V-6 made 220 horsepower... Thats 73.3
> horsepower power per liter...

Correct. First it was not the base engine. Second it was designed
by Yamaha. In fact, Yamaha was originally only supposed to redesign
the head. But that existing American block was so bad that Yamaha had
to restart the design; redesign the entire engine. Defective American
block was why SHO was not ready when Taurus was first released in
1987.

Base engine in Ford Taurus was 51 Hp/liter even in 2005. A base
engine must do 70 Hp per liter in early 1990s. High performance
engines must be higher. Ford's high performance engine was only an
average 73 Hp/liter. Well at least that is much better than GM. GM's
supercharged engine is only 63 Hp/liter (when superchargers are
suppose to do 100 Hp/liter). Why can GM sell that Chevy SS? Because
too many Americans don't do the numbers. No wonder the sticker on the
Chevy SS will not provide both liters and horsepower. You might do
the arithmetic.

Understand what these numbers have been saying for 30 years. GM had
a 70 Hp/liter engine ready for production in 1975. 20 years later,
patriotic (innovative) auto companies had that technology in all
cars. In 2000, neither GM nor Ford had 70 Hp/liter engines as base
(minimum) models. As a result, both would be losing money - two extra
pistons in every car only to be equivalent. Then the 'bean counters'
shorted pension funds to claim profits. How do you know those two
companies were anti-American? Their management refused to innovate.
70 Hp/liter is the damning number. Then these companies would blame
unions, legacy costs - blame anything except top management that did
not even drive and did not come from where the work gets done.

All those missing 70 Hp/liter engines are a symptom of corporate
management that was the company's, the employee's, and America's
enemy. They stifled innovation in the name of cost controls - what
MBAs and lawyers do because they don't come from where the work gets
done. Horsepower per liter simply summarizes the problem.

Look. GM North America was lead by a man whose entire experience
was a 'bean counte'r. GM North America was losing money. GM
International was lead by a man who came from where the work gets
done. GM International was making a small profit. When Jack Smith
retired, who did they promote? Louis Hughes who was making the small
profit? Of course not. They promoted the 'bean counter' Rick Wagoner
who was losing money in the world's most profitable auto market -
North America. Why would GM do that? Some Americans so hate this
country as to 'buy American'. Therefore GM kept making low
performance engines and cars that cost more to build. A patriot,
instead, believes in the free market and buys the best. That 'free
market' attitude is what saved Ford Motor when we kicked out Henry
Ford. We voted Henry Ford out by buying elsewhere. We therefore made
possible the Taurus.

One simple number that determines who deserves our business -
Horsepower per liter. At least Ford finally stopped selling pathetic
52 Hp/liter engines some 20 years too late. But the world has since
moved on. Ford can either re-empower its 'car guys' (its innovators)
or it does not deserve our business.

Meanwhile, only a fool buys GM's supercharged Chevy SS. A fool -
someone who so hates America as to not buy using free market
principles and who does not do simple arithmetic.

On Feb 11, 9:56 am, trainfan1 > wrote:
> Pretty damn close for a grocery-getter family sedan isn't it? It's
> slightly de-tuned from the 1996-1999 figure of 71.67 Hp per liter, &
> quite capable of more.

Nobody intentionally de-tunes an engine. Only myth purveyors
promote those lies along with another classic myth - the 100 MPG
carburetor. Auto companies put out the best they can do. Well Ford
now has engines with late 1980 technology. That is an improvement.
That indicates that William Clay finally liberated some engineering
from the shackles of 'bean counters'.

Once the 5.0 liter Mustang was rated at 215 Hp. The naive then said
Ford de-tuned it. Bull. Using statistical analysis, Ford realized
that the engine they hoped would do 215 in production was not doing
that. Therefore Ford "de-tuned" the number to a more accurate 205 Hp.

67 Hp per liter is the best Ford can currently do. Ford under
Jacque Nasser was that stifled when Ford should have been doing then
what Ford is only doing today. The terrorism of Jacque Nasser was
terribly destructive to Fords quality and performance numbers. To
Nasser, 50 Hp per liter engines were good enough. That is what 'bean
counters' do.

In article . com>, w_tom wrote:

> Nobody intentionally de-tunes an engine. Only myth purveyors
> promote those lies along with another classic myth

Engines are intentionally detuned for both cost and marketing purposes.
Cost reasons might be things like better materials or more costly
processes to have that extra horsepower. A marketing purpose may be that
the marketeers want the more expensive model to have a higher output
engine than the less expensive model.

The horsepower figures themselves are marketing numbers. While it is
wrong to over-rate an engine, under-rating it is perfectly acceptable
practice. This could be done to lower insurance costs for a vehicle. It
could be done to line things up the way the marketeers want them to be
from model to model. It could be done to line things up for next years
model or make it so that an older engine and newer engine don't appear
dramatically different.

Basically, it's marketing, practically anything goes.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>, w_tom
wrote:
>
> > Nobody intentionally de-tunes an engine. Only myth purveyors
> > promote those lies along with another classic myth
>
> Engines are intentionally detuned for both cost and marketing purposes.
> Cost reasons might be things like better materials or more costly
> processes to have that extra horsepower. A marketing purpose may be that
> the marketeers want the more expensive model to have a higher output
> engine than the less expensive model.
>
> The horsepower figures themselves are marketing numbers. While it is
> wrong to over-rate an engine, under-rating it is perfectly acceptable
> practice. This could be done to lower insurance costs for a vehicle. It
> could be done to line things up the way the marketeers want them to be
> from model to model. It could be done to line things up for next years
> model or make it so that an older engine and newer engine don't appear
> dramatically different.
>
> Basically, it's marketing, practically anything goes.
>
I don't know about the rest of the 91 stangs, they were rated at 225hp, I
had mine dynoed, to see my base line, was rebuilding it to the nuts. It came
out on the dyno just shy of 240hp's, in stock form.

On Feb 11, 2:10 pm, "razz" > wrote:
> I don't know about the rest of the 91 stangs, they were rated at 225hp, I
> had mine dynoed, to see my base line, was rebuilding it to the nuts. It came
> out on the dyno just shy of 240hp's, in stock form.

The naive will then speculate - assume that a published number is
intentionally lowered for marketing reasons. Wrong. Engineering
reasons explain a concept taught in first year statistics - confidence
level. If marketing says it does 225 Hp, then all must do 225 Hp ... or
more. Again, this is a simple engineering concept. But like the 100
MPG carburetor, some just know without first learning these facts.
Confidence level is but another example of why one first learns facts
before falling for or promoting myths.

Meanwhile Ford in those 2007 cars is doing maybe late 1980 or 1990
technology. This is a major accomplishment from their pathetic 50+ Hp/
liter engines (GM also sells the same pathetic technology to the
naive). The existence of a 67 Hp/liter engine (as a base engine)
means somebody let 'car guys' design starting maybe four years ago.
Therefore profits from that liberation may begin appearing years from
now. Notice how long it takes innovation to appear on spread sheets.
'Bean counters' (also called communists) would fear you might learn
this concept - if they even understood it.

Classic reason for a 52 Hp/liter engine in a 2005 car - 'bean
counters' - the reason for stifled innovation, higher costs, no
profits, 'blame the unions', lower reliability, 'legacy cost' myths,
and so many other failures that fall under a category called anti-
American.

67 Hp/liter suggests innovation is finally happening. 67 Hp/liter
also says Ford has numerous mistakes to still correct - classic of any
company run by a 'bean counter'.. Much of this is directly traceable
to four years of destruction instituted by Jaques Nasser.

Notice how much later mistakes appear on spread sheets AND how long
it takes for innovations to result in profits. A 'bean counter' who
can cost control and show profits this year is promoted at the expense
of innovators. Then he reaps large bonuses. Then that cost
controlling results in losses many years later. So he blames the
unions, unfair Japanese competition, the education system, taxes, and
anything else to deflect blame from the man who stifled innovation.
Appreciate how economics really works. 67 Hp/liter suggests someone
in Ford is finally permitted to innovate - or at least do what the
competition has been doing for over a decade.

225 Hp engine doing 240 Hp? Of course - once we learn what 'car
guys' must know: confidence level. Only myth purveyors would cite
marketing or 'detuning' for those different numbers. This is why
successful companies promote from where the work gets done rather than
promote lawyers, MBAs and communication majors. Successful companies
need people who can innovate. That means coming from where the work
gets done.

The original Henry Ford was a race car driver. He had 'dirt under
his fingernails. The Henry Ford we removed in 1981 was classic of
those also called communist. He was a MBA, knew nothing about the
product, and stifled innovation. Learn why Henry Ford of the 1970s
nearly bankrupt Ford Motor. Learn why the 67 Hp/liter number tells us
so much.

"w_tom" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 11, 2:10 pm, "razz" > wrote:
> > I don't know about the rest of the 91 stangs, they were rated at 225hp,
I
> > had mine dynoed, to see my base line, was rebuilding it to the nuts. It
came
> > out on the dyno just shy of 240hp's, in stock form.
>
> The naive will then speculate - assume that a published number is
> intentionally lowered for marketing reasons. Wrong. Engineering
> reasons explain a concept taught in first year statistics - confidence
> level. If marketing says it does 225 Hp, then all must do 225 Hp ... or
> more. Again, this is a simple engineering concept. But like the 100
> MPG carburetor, some just know without first learning these facts.
> Confidence level is but another example of why one first learns facts
> before falling for or promoting myths.
>
> Meanwhile Ford in those 2007 cars is doing maybe late 1980 or 1990
> technology. This is a major accomplishment from their pathetic 50+ Hp/
> liter engines (GM also sells the same pathetic technology to the
> naive). The existence of a 67 Hp/liter engine (as a base engine)
> means somebody let 'car guys' design starting maybe four years ago.
> Therefore profits from that liberation may begin appearing years from
> now. Notice how long it takes innovation to appear on spread sheets.
> 'Bean counters' (also called communists) would fear you might learn
> this concept - if they even understood it.
>
> Classic reason for a 52 Hp/liter engine in a 2005 car - 'bean
> counters' - the reason for stifled innovation, higher costs, no
> profits, 'blame the unions', lower reliability, 'legacy cost' myths,
> and so many other failures that fall under a category called anti-
> American.
>
> 67 Hp/liter suggests innovation is finally happening. 67 Hp/liter
> also says Ford has numerous mistakes to still correct - classic of any
> company run by a 'bean counter'.. Much of this is directly traceable
> to four years of destruction instituted by Jaques Nasser.
>
> Notice how much later mistakes appear on spread sheets AND how long
> it takes for innovations to result in profits. A 'bean counter' who
> can cost control and show profits this year is promoted at the expense
> of innovators. Then he reaps large bonuses. Then that cost
> controlling results in losses many years later. So he blames the
> unions, unfair Japanese competition, the education system, taxes, and
> anything else to deflect blame from the man who stifled innovation.
> Appreciate how economics really works. 67 Hp/liter suggests someone
> in Ford is finally permitted to innovate - or at least do what the
> competition has been doing for over a decade.
>
> 225 Hp engine doing 240 Hp? Of course - once we learn what 'car
> guys' must know: confidence level. Only myth purveyors would cite
> marketing or 'detuning' for those different numbers. This is why
> successful companies promote from where the work gets done rather than
> promote lawyers, MBAs and communication majors. Successful companies
> need people who can innovate. That means coming from where the work
> gets done.
>
> The original Henry Ford was a race car driver. He had 'dirt under
> his fingernails. The Henry Ford we removed in 1981 was classic of
> those also called communist. He was a MBA, knew nothing about the
> product, and stifled innovation. Learn why Henry Ford of the 1970s
> nearly bankrupt Ford Motor. Learn why the 67 Hp/liter number tells us
> so much.
>
Well, I know as fact, most engines produced are detuned, purely for economic
and longevity reasons. I worked in a vehicle manufacturing plant, and sure
we could make these engines squirt out 1000 hps. cost and longevity are the
only reasons we did so. Warranty claims would sky rocket on such engines.