Lincoln pickups?!

The thing that got to people about the Pintos is that the problem
stemmed from a specific hazard, easily enough mitigated -- which the
company foresaw but chose to ignore in order to save, if memory serves,
$12 per unit. It was only a small leap of argumentation from there to
the notion of placing a value on human life, which people are
notoriously averse to even talking about in our culture (except of
course in court).

If memory serves, Samuel C. Florman wrote a nice piece about all this;
I think it's collected in _The Existential Pleasures of Engineering_.

(To digress a bit, Florman is among the insightful and literate
people -- Henry Petroski also comes to mind in this regard -- who write
explicitly and knowledgeably about what engineers do, and why. It's an
angle rather less common than good science writing or technology
writing. He often gets into ethics and values. I recommend his works
highly.)

The Pinto affair was also treated at book length several years ago. A
Texas Tech syllabus says that would be Birsch, Douglas, and John H.
Fielder, _The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Business, and
Technology_. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994.

As for the Taurus: I had one, and found it ordinary (especially
compared to some of the more-or-less competitors) but not outright bad.
I would agree with some friend who say that it might well have saved
the company -- consider where they'd been in recent years... The
jellybean shape wasn't all that revolutionary (think of it as the Audi
5000 by way of the 84-up T-bird) and as others have pointed out,
neither was a transverse engined FWD, but putting it all together in a
good-sized car that really didn't have too many systematic vices, at a
popular price, was something that I recall as nearly a "you bet your
company" level of audacity.

--Joe

DYM wrote:
> Nate Nagel > wrote in
> :
>
>> JohnH wrote:
> I had a 90 Tarus wagon last me ten years and 120,000 miles. Did
> everything I asked of it. Hauled kids, had eight seat belts, rabbits,
> bags of manure.
>
> Was certainly better than the Citation I mistakenly bought.
>
> Doug

Only 120,000 miles? That's about half of what I'd expect a good car to last.

Cory

"necromancer" > wrote in message
>
> Thinking of Lincolns, I saw something equally idiotic this AM: A
> reletively new (looked to be less than 3 years old) Town Car on 22"
> spinning rims. I guess the tasteless "bling! bling!" mentality is
> starting to leech its way to the upper middle and lower upper classes...

Could be one of those wierd cultural things. OTOH, you can buy a [very high
mileage] 2-3 year old Town Car from a livery company for fairly short
money. They usually put on about 70K+ p/a.

223rem wrote:
> Ugly and pointless. Is that Ford's strategy of regaining
> market share?

Lincoln is just another brand name. Putting that name on a truck makes
about as much sense as it does to put Caddy, Volvo, etc., on any of the
many truck-like SUV's out there.

If a black Lincoln truck with red corinthian leather upholstery, 40
series low profile tires, glowing lights in the wheelwells and an
enclosed bed with a built-in TV will sell, then count on Ford to do it.
Or any other car maker who needs to boost sales.

"Cory Dunkle" > wrote in
news:1134198218.8f0e9ce7fe19e661e9b860695a9ad6cd@r oc.usenetexchange.com:

> DYM wrote:
>> Nate Nagel > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> JohnH wrote:
>> I had a 90 Tarus wagon last me ten years and 120,000 miles. Did
>> everything I asked of it. Hauled kids, had eight seat belts, rabbits,
>> bags of manure.
>>
>> Was certainly better than the Citation I mistakenly bought.
>>
>> Doug
>
> Only 120,000 miles? That's about half of what I'd expect a good car to
> last.
>
> Cory
>
Did I say it was worn out, after ten years I was in the mood for a new
car. I've got a friend who has one just like it still going strong.
Anyway after ten years my needs change. Now all I need is a little sedan.

Doug

223rem wrote:
> Ugly and pointless. Is that Ford's strategy of regaining
> market share?

Ford GM & Chrysler all rely on the "buy American" flag-waving customer
to buy their poorly-made products.

So they can MAKE "pointless" cars and get away with it. The P/T
Cruiser is a good example... as is the Mustang.

bc wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>>Ugly and pointless. Is that Ford's strategy of regaining
>>market share?
>
>
> Ford GM & Chrysler all rely on the "buy American" flag-waving customer
> to buy their poorly-made products.
>
> So they can MAKE "pointless" cars and get away with it. The P/T
> Cruiser is a good example... as is the Mustang.
>

The Mustang I wouldn't call pointless; it apparently is a decent attempt
at a sporty car that is still practical enough to drive every day (from
what I hear, I haven't driven one yet) now the PT Snoozer is a perfectly
respectable little econobox that just happens to be fugly, but no worse
than, say, the Element or whatever Scion looks like a rolling toaster...

There are some truly execrable american cars, and I am no american car
fan, but the two you picked really aren't that bad in the grand scheme
of things, there's plenty far more deserving of scorn.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

What I don't get is, after the dismal failure of the Lincoln Blackwood,
they're trying it _again_ with minor variations.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, YourAdHere wrote:

> What I don't get is, after the dismal failure of the Lincoln Blackwood,
> they're trying it _again_ with minor variations.

Ford's NAO stupidities are exceeded only by those of the North American
buying public.

Wasn't the Merkur based on the Taurus, or was it the other way 'round?
Now there was a bad idea. Though it did look pretty good (better than
the Taurus of the time) and once in a rare while I see one driving
around.


>> As for the Taurus: I had one, and found it ordinary (especially compared to some of the more-or-less competitors) but not outright bad I would agree with some friend who say that it might well have saved the company -- consider where they'd been in recent years... The jellybean shape wasn't all that revolutionary (think of it as the Audi 5000 by way of the 84-up T-bird) and as others have pointed out, neither was a transverse engined FWD, but putting it all together in a good-sized car that really didn't have too many systematic vices, at a popular price, was something that I recall as nearly a "you bet your company" level of audacity. <<