No help or wrong help for Detroit?

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:56:28 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, edward ohare wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:47 -0600,
>> (Brent P) wrote:

>> Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>
>
>The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
>warmed over 1970s design.


It has smooth contemporary styling, rack and pinion steering, and a
new modern engine. Not one in twenty potential buyers realizes its a
modification of Ford's 1979 LTD.

Meanwhile, I don't see any complaints about the fact the Porsche 911
is a warmed over 1950s car.

In article >, edward ohare wrote:

>>The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
>>warmed over 1970s design.

> It has smooth contemporary styling, rack and pinion steering, and a
> new modern engine. Not one in twenty potential buyers realizes its a
> modification of Ford's 1979 LTD.

100% realize it comes in three flavors: old people's car, cop car, and
taxi. That serves as sufficent proxy that the design is essentially from
the 1970s.

> Meanwhile, I don't see any complaints about the fact the Porsche 911
> is a warmed over 1950s car.

While I am no Porsche expert, I do believe the 911 has had a ground up
redesign or three. I could be wrong but I would be surprised if it
hasn't.

"edward ohare" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:56:28 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, edward ohare
>>wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:47 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>
>>
>>The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
>>warmed over 1970s design.
>
>
> It has smooth contemporary styling, rack and pinion steering, and a
> new modern engine. Not one in twenty potential buyers realizes its a
> modification of Ford's 1979 LTD.
>
> Meanwhile, I don't see any complaints about the fact the Porsche 911
> is a warmed over 1950s car.

I'm not debating the strengths and weaknesses of the Crown Victoria or
whether it is a great or terrible car.

I guess it depends on your definition of "modification," but I'd say that
the current Crown Victoria is not a modification of the 1979 LTD. The CV
received a completely new chassis in 2003 although CV, Mercury Grand
Marquis, and Lincoln Town car remain the only body-on-frame passenger cars
sold in the U.S. today. On the plus side, the body-on-frame architecture
of the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, and Town Car make them good candidates for
stretching (I believe that Ford introduced a stretched wheelbase version for
use in NY taxi fleets). On the minus side, the body-on-frame architecture
is not a rigid as the monocoque construction used in the rest of the
automotive world. IMO, the combination of the same name, front engine/rear
drive, body on frame architecture, and similarity of the body style leads
people to think that the vehicle remains unchanged, and saying that it is
unchanged is not factually correct.

The same is true of the Porsche. They were originally mid-engined
body-on-frame cars and are now rear-engine monocoque construction. Other
than the name and family resemblance, there is no warming over.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, edward ohare
> wrote:
>
>>>The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
>>>warmed over 1970s design.
>
>> It has smooth contemporary styling, rack and pinion steering, and a
>> new modern engine. Not one in twenty potential buyers realizes its a
>> modification of Ford's 1979 LTD.
>
> 100% realize it comes in three flavors: old people's car, cop car, and
> taxi. That serves as sufficent proxy that the design is essentially from
> the 1970s.
>

LOL! That does seem to fit the Crown Victoria (and Buick) driver!

As long as 20 years ago, Toyota was very aware that they were in danger of
becoming the favorite car of middle-aged and next old people and began an
effort to get younger buyers. IMO, producing a car that appeals to young
first-time buyers is essential to garnering loyal customers and is the
reason why Toyota has managed to maintain sales growth for such a long time.
The Korean nameplates are also aware of this and are working to duplicate
Toyota's sales success. They appear to have fixed most of their quality
issues and they have a price advantage. I think that it is only a matter of
time before they improve their performance, fuel mileage, handling,
drivability, and interior finishes.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Ray O wrote:
> "edward ohare" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:56:28 -0600,
> > (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >>In article >, edward ohare
> >>wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:47 -0600,
> >>> (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >>> Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>
> >>
> >>The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
> >>warmed over 1970s design.
> >
> >
> > It has smooth contemporary styling, rack and pinion steering, and a
> > new modern engine. Not one in twenty potential buyers realizes its a
> > modification of Ford's 1979 LTD.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I don't see any complaints about the fact the Porsche 911
> > is a warmed over 1950s car.
>
> I'm not debating the strengths and weaknesses of the Crown Victoria or
> whether it is a great or terrible car.
>
> I guess it depends on your definition of "modification," but I'd say that
> the current Crown Victoria is not a modification of the 1979 LTD. The CV
> received a completely new chassis in 2003 although CV, Mercury Grand
> Marquis, and Lincoln Town car remain the only body-on-frame passenger cars
> sold in the U.S. today. On the plus side, the body-on-frame architecture
> of the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, and Town Car make them good candidates for
> stretching (I believe that Ford introduced a stretched wheelbase version for
> use in NY taxi fleets). On the minus side, the body-on-frame architecture
> is not a rigid as the monocoque construction used in the rest of the
> automotive world. IMO, the combination of the same name, front engine/rear
> drive, body on frame architecture, and similarity of the body style leads
> people to think that the vehicle remains unchanged, and saying that it is
> unchanged is not factually correct.
>
> The same is true of the Porsche. They were originally mid-engined
> body-on-frame cars and are now rear-engine monocoque construction. Other
> than the name and family resemblance, there is no warming over.
> --
>
> Ray O

Other than the original 356 prototypes, Porsches were traditionally
rear-engine. The mid-engined cars didn't come out until the 356 had
already been in production for several years. Also I am not aware of
any Porsche ever having had what we would consider a traditional frame,
ever.

nate

edward ohare wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 00:56:28 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >In article >, edward ohare wrote:
> >> On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:10:47 -0600,
> >> (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>
> >
> >The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
> >warmed over 1970s design.
>
>
> It has smooth contemporary styling, rack and pinion steering, and a
> new modern engine. Not one in twenty potential buyers realizes its a
> modification of Ford's 1979 LTD.
>
> Meanwhile, I don't see any complaints about the fact the Porsche 911
> is a warmed over 1950s car.

The 911 was not introduced to the world until 1963; and while it did
have a good long run the current "911" is really not that closely
related to the original. That line was broken with the introduction of
the 993 back in 1998.

nate

"Ed Pirrero" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wolfpuppy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Lawyers have nothing at all to do with negotiated contracts between
>> unions
>> and the company. These details are all ironed out at the bargaining
>> table.
>> The companies have lawyers, of course, as any company would, but when it
>> comes to union issues, 99.99% of them will be settled in arbitration. It
>> is
>> rare that a court would be involved in a dispute between a union and a
>> company. As for the consumer, he has the choice to buy from that company
>> or
>> shop at their competitor, something every company is aware of far in
>> advance
>> prior to agreeing to any contract.
>>
>> Only about 2% of the population are union employees today.
>
> And yet, they, and their contracts, are an exceedingly easy scapegoat
> for the ills of the auto industry.
>
> Here's a thought exercise - back in the early '80s, foreign makers made
> what were then deemed "hot hatches", econobox hatchbacks with bigger
> motors, uprated suspensions and better brakes, than the regular line.
> They sold for a bit more, but not so much as to keep them from being
> entry-level.
>
> So, the exercise is this: what if car makers tried a similar thing
> today? A relatively stripped model where you could add as an option
> the Performance Group, in which you get engine, suspension, brake and
> some sporty interior stuff but were able to give the heave-ho to crap
> you may not want. Like power, leather seats, power windows, A/C, heck,
> even radio/sound system. Wouldn't the younger buyers go fo that kind
> of deal? Seems like Subaru is going that way with their WRX line, sort
> of.
>
> I mean, what you're trying to do is get them in early, give them a
> decent car, and then as they get older and the priorities change, they
> buy the models with more luxury/room/towing capacity, etc.
>
> I can't figure out why this wouldn't work AND make money for folks who
> are in desparate need for both.
>
> E.P.

Well, if you are going to compete, then compete. The Japanese make the best
car today and they got there by building what the people wanted at a
competitive price. Domestic car manufacturers didn't and lost the lead.
Now, they are trying to play catch-up, but they aren't making it.

You might catch a younger buyer with a catchy song or colorful graphics the
first time around, but if your product isn't competitive, you will lose that
customer when he is more knowledgeable on his next purchase.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:31:58 -0500, "wolfpuppy" >
wrote:


>Well, if you are going to compete, then compete. The Japanese make the best
>car today and they got there by building what the people wanted at a
>competitive price. Domestic car manufacturers didn't and lost the lead.
>Now, they are trying to play catch-up, but they aren't making it.
>
>You might catch a younger buyer with a catchy song or colorful graphics the
>first time around, but if your product isn't competitive, you will lose that
>customer when he is more knowledgeable on his next purchase.


So, considering your expertice <retch> on auto financing, we ought to
believe you're an expert on marketing and quality of vehicles too?

edward ohare wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2006 15:01:29 -0800, "Ed Pirrero" >
> wrote:
>
>
> >No, but those were the days of yore for the domestics. I see a lot of
> >retro styling these days, but a little bit of retro equipment options
>
>
> Like.... crank windows and an 8 track? <G>

Nothing wrong with hand-crank windows. They work great, and last a
long time. Less cost, less complexity.

Not everyone needs power everything. Even the damn integrated stereo
systems have gotten out of hand. If I want to put an aftermarket
system in my Audi, I have to tear out ALL of the existing gear.
Assinine.

Base model with the performance package, and delete one of the
mid-range models.

> >might stimulate interest in the domestics. After all, the imports
> >don't do this kind of thing at all, really.
>
> Increasing fragmentation is already killing Detroit. What's needed
> isn't another one off model that's a "great success" selling 30,000
> units. What's needed is the equivalent of the 84 Caravan/Voyager that
> will sell a million units a year for several years with minimal
> changes.

The minivan as re-imaged by ChryCo (created by VW) was a thunderous
success. Everyone does it now. In fact, everyone does it *better.*
We'd think about one when the kids get of the proper age, except for
the transmission issues. WTF is wrong with a manual tranny? Are there
any domestic people-haulers that have one? Err, that have less than 20
seats, LOL...

Still, ChryCo had a corner on the market for 3-4 years.

You still have to drag in entry level folks. And you can get them in
if you offer models that don't have every frill, but still offer some
decent performance. It worked for them in the past. It might be time
to visit that past for an idea of how to save their sorry asses. Of
course, it's too late for guys like me - Detroit had their chances with
me already. I'd still buy a domestic pickup over an import, though.

E.P.

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:27:57 -0500, "wolfpuppy" >
wrote:

>
>"edward ohare" > wrote in message
.. .

>> So, considering your expertice <retch> on auto financing, we ought to
>> believe you're an expert on marketing and quality of vehicles too?
>
>What the hell's the matter with you, dude, that you feel the need to vent
>insults? My opinions are my opinions--you don't have to agree with them.
>You might try keeping a civil tongue in your head, though. And I may know a
>bit more about auto financing than you; you haven't shown much smarts in
>that department. As for auto refinancing, yeah, having bought as many cars
>as I have, I have learned a thing or two. You get smart about things when
>you listen to qualified people for answers instead of resorting to
>name-calling. Dumbass.


A little hot under the collar there, guy.

Look, its all a good argument for amusement. Too bad you are so
misinformed.