 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / February 2007Ford gets a clue
I have been blasting Ford for abandoning their long time model names like the Cougar, Thunderbird and, most of all, the Taurus. Now it appears that Alan Mulally (Ford's new CEO) is wondering the same thing I have been. This guy might be showing some promise. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/ap_on_bi_ge/ford_taurus_revived_5 > I have been blasting Ford for abandoning their long time model names > like the Cougar, Thunderbird and, most of all, the Taurus. Great. I can't wait to buy a new Pinto. Actually, I've been blasting Ford for moving a lot of their assembly lines and factories to different countries. Is it because domestic labor is too high? Tell that to the foreign manufactures who now have factories in the states. > Actually, I've been blasting Ford for moving a lot of their assembly > lines and factories to different countries. Is it because domestic > labor is too high? Tell that to the foreign manufactures who now have > factories in the states. 1) Everybody else in the US is doing it. 2) UAW contracts with all sorts of nonsense that cost Ford a lot of money don't apply to the foreign competition. > In article <1170808584.972986.48...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Kruse wrote: > 1) Everybody else in the US is doing it. > 2) UAW contracts with all sorts of nonsense that cost Ford a lot of money > don't apply to the foreign competition. 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 maker and just put their name on it............. >> In article <1170808584.972986.48...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Kruse wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Maybe Ford should just have their cars built domestically by a foreign > maker and just put their name on it............. As Brent stated, Ford isn't close to the first manufacturer to see the writing on the wall. Look at where most of the day to day stuff we use is manufactured. It isn't here. Our standard of living is the result of utilizing cheap third world labor to manufacture goods for our own consumption. Automobiles are no different than sneakers, underwear, or TVs. Know why Toyota makes cars and trucks here? Because it is cheaper than making them in Japan. If the Big Three effectively use Third world labor to sell car The fact is we don't have the workforce to manufacture all crap we consume. We also don't have a workforce that is willing to do all the tedious, boring and low paying jobs to product all that crap at affordable prices. This is why there is such a demand for illegal immigrant labor. Automobile manufacturing is going to leave this country as it will leave Japan too. It has happened with many other industries, like cloths manufacturing for instance, and it will happen with many more over time. It is inevitable and evolutionary. > As Brent stated, Ford isn't close to the first manufacturer to see the > writing on the wall. Look at where most of the day to day stuff we use > is manufactured. It isn't here. Our standard of living is the result > of utilizing cheap third world labor to manufacture goods for our own > consumption. The problem is, that isn't sustainable. It's great for short term profits but eventually you eat your own doing it. The same is true with what the UAW did. It was great for them short term to bend the big 3 over when they could, but it wasn't sustainable long term. > The fact is we don't have the workforce to manufacture all crap we > consume. Actually we could manufacture most of it here, that is if we wanted to put our minds to the task. Automation allows one worker in the US to do what many do in China. > We also don't have a workforce that is willing to do all the > tedious, boring and low paying jobs to product all that crap at > affordable prices. False. We don't have a workforce willing to do it at the wage of someone in China. People in the US are there to do all sorts of crappy jobs. It's not like working in the walmart, target, or home depot putting the crap from china on the shelves is a less boring, tedious, and low paying job than making the crap would be. > This is why there is such a demand for illegal immigrant labor. There is no demand for illegal immigrant labor. Illegal immigrants come in and undercut the going wage. If there was a demand for more labor, wages would be going up faster than the illegals could get here to fill to the jobs. Instead the supply of labor is increasing greater than the demand and wages are going down. > Automobile manufacturing is going to leave this > country as it will leave Japan too. It has happened with many other > industries, like cloths manufacturing for instance, and it will happen > with many more over time. It is inevitable and evolutionary. I won't drive some car made in china. Too much experience with the way things are done over their to trust my life to something made there. >> As Brent stated, Ford isn't close to the first manufacturer to see the >> writing on the wall. Look at where most of the day to day stuff we use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > UAW did. It was great for them short term to bend the big 3 over when > they could, but it wasn't sustainable long term. IMO, we can no longer look at our economy on a vacuum. It is intertwined with the economies of many other countries with each one carving out their niches. We aren't the only country going through this transition in manufacturing bases.... just the first and the furthest along in the process. Plus there is nothing that is being done now that can't be reversed. I don't see shifts in manufacturing as a problem. >> The fact is we don't have the workforce to manufacture all crap we >> consume. > > Actually we could manufacture most of it here, that is if we wanted to > put our minds to the task. Automation allows one worker in the US to do > what many do in China. Automation can't always compete with cheap labor. Why is a requirement or a good thing to manufacture everything we consume? It isn't necessary and it isn't good for the global economy. >> We also don't have a workforce that is willing to do all the >> tedious, boring and low paying jobs to product all that crap at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > from china on the shelves is a less boring, tedious, and low paying job > than making the crap would be. This is just your opinion. The fact is we don't have the manufacturing workforce to remotely compete with the Chinese. If all the shelf stockers were making widgets then who would stock the shelves? The Chinese? >> This is why there is such a demand for illegal immigrant labor. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to the jobs. Instead the supply of labor is increasing greater than the > demand and wages are going down. Illegal immigrants aren't undercutting anything and there is definitely a demand for their services. In the construction industry the immigrant labor (legal and other) is in huge demand. We aren't talking about low paying jobs either. Many are skilled labor positions like stone masons, drywall, carpentry, plumbing etc. I got news for you... immigrants work hard, learn very quickly and do high quality work. If immigrants were taking jobs from the rest of us then the unemployment rate wouldn't be in the 4.5% range. Wages aren't going down at all. >> Automobile manufacturing is going to leave this >> country as it will leave Japan too. It has happened with many other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I won't drive some car made in china. Too much experience with the way > things are done over their to trust my life to something made there. That is the great thing about a free market economy - you can choose. Keep in mind that is what many said about Korean cars just 3-5 years ago. I bet the Chinese can make a very decent car for a fantastic price and the quality of their cars will increase substantially with ever new model release. I wouldn't underestimate them. > IMO, we can no longer look at our economy on a vacuum. It is > intertwined with the economies of many other countries with each one > carving out their niches. We aren't the only country going through this > transition in manufacturing bases.... just the first and the furthest > along in the process. Plus there is nothing that is being done now that > can't be reversed. I don't see shifts in manufacturing as a problem. If we make nothing, we are nothing. What does the world need us for when all the knowledge has been transfered to China? > Automation can't always compete with cheap labor. Why is a requirement > or a good thing to manufacture everything we consume? It isn't > necessary and it isn't good for the global economy. We can never make -everything- but we should make a significant amount of it. And what that isn't good for is those who'd prefer there wasn't such a thing as a middle class. That's why people in the US have been placed in wage competition with those in China. >> False. We don't have a workforce willing to do it at the wage of someone >> in China. People in the US are there to do all sorts of crappy jobs. It's >> not like working in the walmart, target, or home depot putting the crap >> from china on the shelves is a less boring, tedious, and low paying job >> than making the crap would be. > This is just your opinion. And what is the claim of 'work americans won't do' but your's? > The fact is we don't have the manufacturing > workforce to remotely compete with the Chinese. If all the shelf > stockers were making widgets then who would stock the shelves? The Chinese? Yet we still have welfare roles, jobless, people who think that raising the minimum wage will help them from their plight. >> There is no demand for illegal immigrant labor. Illegal immigrants come >> in and undercut the going wage. If there was a demand for more labor, >> wages would be going up faster than the illegals could get here to fill >> to the jobs. Instead the supply of labor is increasing greater than the >> demand and wages are going down. > Illegal immigrants aren't undercutting anything Bullshit. Wages where significant numbers have moved in to do the jobs at best remain flat as inflation marches on. Most go down. > and there is definitely a demand for their services. In the terms of lowest bidder, sure. But there's someone left waiting in the home depot parking lot that doesn't work. > In the construction industry the immigrant > labor (legal and other) is in huge demand. We aren't talking about low > paying jobs either. I didn't write low paying, I wrote work for less. > Many are skilled labor positions like stone masons, > drywall, carpentry, plumbing etc. I got news for you... immigrants work > hard, learn very quickly and do high quality work. Did I say otherwise? No. So you introduce this for what exactly? > If immigrants were > taking jobs from the rest of us then the unemployment rate wouldn't be > in the 4.5% range. Wages aren't going down at all. Then why hire an illegal alien? Illegal status alone carries a risk, abit a small one, to the employer. This is reflected in a lower pay rate. Wages go down when labor supply increases. The reduction of wages due to illlegal aliens is well documented btw. Unemployment rate doesn't track reduced wages nor does it track unemployed illegal aliens. >>> Automobile manufacturing is going to leave this >>> country as it will leave Japan too. It has happened with many other >>> industries, like cloths manufacturing for instance, and it will happen >>> with many more over time. It is inevitable and evolutionary. >> I won't drive some car made in china. Too much experience with the way >> things are done over their to trust my life to something made there. > That is the great thing about a free market economy - you can choose. > Keep in mind that is what many said about Korean cars just 3-5 years > ago. I bet the Chinese can make a very decent car for a fantastic price > and the quality of their cars will increase substantially with ever new > model release. I wouldn't underestimate them. Spoken like someone who has never had to have product made over there. If you knew how many of the parts manufacturers operated, you won't want your brake calipers coming from china, let alone the engine block. Or the assembled engine for that matter. >> IMO, we can no longer look at our economy on a vacuum. It is >> intertwined with the economies of many other countries with each one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If we make nothing, we are nothing. What does the world need us for when > all the knowledge has been transfered to China? We still manufacture plenty of goods. The reality is we have transitioned into a service economy from and industrial economy. It has been this way since approximately 1980. It isn't a bad thing it is just evolution. Other countries are doing the same thing. We were once an agricultural based economy and then went industrial. I'm sure some people thought it was the end at that time too. >> Automation can't always compete with cheap labor. Why is a requirement >> or a good thing to manufacture everything we consume? It isn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a thing as a middle class. That's why people in the US have been placed > in wage competition with those in China. We consume far more than any other country on earth. I just can't see how we can manufacture this quantity of stuff economically. The middle class is still alive and well here. The work force has to adjust to changing economic times. Somtimes this adjustment is easy and other times it is painful. It has always been this way. >>> False. We don't have a workforce willing to do it at the wage of someone >>> in China. People in the US are there to do all sorts of crappy jobs. It's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And what is the claim of 'work americans won't do' but your's? Here are a few jobs: janitorial work, construction labor, migrant farm labor, fast food positions, garment manufacturing. >> The fact is we don't have the manufacturing >> workforce to remotely compete with the Chinese. If all the shelf >> stockers were making widgets then who would stock the shelves? The Chinese? > > Yet we still have welfare roles, jobless, people who think that raising > the minimum wage will help them from their plight. The unemployment rate is 4.5%. It can't get much lower. >>> There is no demand for illegal immigrant labor. Illegal immigrants come >>> in and undercut the going wage. If there was a demand for more labor, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bullshit. Wages where significant numbers have moved in to do the jobs at > best remain flat as inflation marches on. Most go down. The unemployment rate is 4.5%. If large numbers of American workers are being displaced then this number would be much higher. >> and there is definitely a demand for their services. > > In the terms of lowest bidder, sure. But there's someone left waiting in > the home depot parking lot that doesn't work. Around here if it wasn't for immigrant labor not much would get done. They get paid minimum wage or what the market will bare. Just like everyone else. Plus, we don't owe any of them a job. >> In the construction industry the immigrant >> labor (legal and other) is in huge demand. We aren't talking about low >> paying jobs either. > > I didn't write low paying, I wrote work for less. Less than who? If there is no one competing with them except other immigrants then who exactly is getting hurt? >> Many are skilled labor positions like stone masons, >> drywall, carpentry, plumbing etc. I got news for you... immigrants work >> hard, learn very quickly and do high quality work. > > Did I say otherwise? No. So you introduce this for what exactly? You seem to think they are here undercutting American workers which isn't true most of the time. They are here doing jobs that Americans won't do. >> If immigrants were >> taking jobs from the rest of us then the unemployment rate wouldn't be >> in the 4.5% range. Wages aren't going down at all. > > Then why hire an illegal alien? Illegal status alone carries a risk, abit > a small one, to the employer. This is reflected in a lower pay rate. Do you know what a low unemployment rate means? It is an indicator of labor shortage. If you can't find a legal to fill a job then you will hire an illegal. These Mexicans aren't crossing the border to sit on their a.ses. They are coming here to work because there are jobs to be filled. > Wages go down when labor supply increases. The reduction of wages due to > illlegal aliens is well documented btw. Unemployment rate doesn't track > reduced wages nor does it track unemployed illegal aliens. The unemployment rate is 4.5%. illegals aren't depressing wages. they are filling a demand. They aren't taking jobs from anyone. If they were the unemployment rate would increase. >>>> Automobile manufacturing is going to leave this >>>> country as it will leave Japan too. It has happened with many other [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > your brake calipers coming from china, let alone the engine block. Or the > assembled engine for that matter. I have many products that were made "over there". The overwhelming majority work just fine. Funny that your attitude toward China is the same as many had in the 1950s and 1960s regarding the Japanese. Keep up the whining and bitching instead of taking them seriously and your industry will become irrelevant as they run circles around you. I see history repeating itself and you are going to sit there and let it happen and blame everyone but yourself for getting beaten by them. > We still manufacture plenty of goods. The reality is we have > transitioned into a service economy from and industrial economy. It has > been this way since approximately 1980. It isn't a bad thing it is just > evolution. Other countries are doing the same thing. We were once an > agricultural based economy and then went industrial. I'm sure some > people thought it was the end at that time too. If we don't make anything, what good are we to the rest of the world? What value does our currency have? If we have nothing they want, if we are a 'service' economy, what good are we? > We consume far more than any other country on earth. I just can't see > how we can manufacture this quantity of stuff economically. We did for a damn long time. Most of the factories aren't closing because they cannot meet demand, but that profit margins aren't high enough to satisify wall street. > The middle class is still alive and well here. The work force has to adjust to > changing economic times. Somtimes this adjustment is easy and other > times it is painful. It has always been this way. Just live on chinese wages and we'll be fine. > Here are a few jobs: janitorial work, construction labor, migrant farm > labor, fast food positions, garment manufacturing. I've seen americans do everything in that list but farm labor. But when there were still farms around here, in my grandparents day, they did some of that. > The unemployment rate is 4.5%. It can't get much lower. Check how it's calculated some time. >> Bullshit. Wages where significant numbers have moved in to do the jobs at >> best remain flat as inflation marches on. Most go down. > The unemployment rate is 4.5%. If large numbers of American workers are > being displaced then this number would be much higher. Again, did I state unemployed, and still on the unemployment rolls? No. You keep trying to change what I wrote to suit an easy counter argument. >> In the terms of lowest bidder, sure. But there's someone left waiting in >> the home depot parking lot that doesn't work. > Around here if it wasn't for immigrant labor not much would get done. > They get paid minimum wage or what the market will bare. Just like > everyone else. Plus, we don't owe any of them a job. Then we are agreed, increased labor supply brings down wages. The market decides. Flood the market with illegal alien labor and wages drop. >> I didn't write low paying, I wrote work for less. > Less than who? Less than they did before. > If there is no one competing with them except other > immigrants then who exactly is getting hurt? The guy who used to do meat packing for $15/hr who went on to some other job for $12/hr because meat packing now pays $8/hr because of the illegal aliens flooding the labor market at the meat packing plant. > You seem to think they are here undercutting American workers which > isn't true most of the time. They are here doing jobs that Americans > won't do. Americans used to do those jobs. They used to pay enough money for americans to do them. Now they don't. That's why americans don't do them any more. It's not that they are 'dirty' or anything else, they just don't pay enough because the market, filled with illegal aliens on the labor supply side, doesn't bare the wages it once did. >>> in the 4.5% range. Wages aren't going down at all. >> Then why hire an illegal alien? Illegal status alone carries a risk, abit >> a small one, to the employer. This is reflected in a lower pay rate. > Do you know what a low unemployment rate means? It is an indicator of > labor shortage. It's an indicator of political BS mostly. > If you can't find a legal to fill a job then you will hire an illegal. Could just increase the wage so an american would take the job. But why do that, when mexicans have flooded the labor market and dropped the price. >> Wages go down when labor supply increases. The reduction of wages due to >> illlegal aliens is well documented btw. Unemployment rate doesn't track >> reduced wages nor does it track unemployed illegal aliens. > The unemployment rate is 4.5%. This seems to be your mantra. You don't seem to grasp that it is irrelevant. > illegals aren't depressing wages. they are filling a demand. They > aren't taking jobs from anyone. If they > were the unemployment rate would increase. You're not grasping it. Let's say you have a job that pays $20/hr. In your line of work illegals start coming in willing to work for $15/hr. Your employer tells you, you can work for $15/hr or take a hike. You find a job across town doing something else making $18/hr, where illegals haven't yet saturated because it requires a good english speaker or some form of experience they don't have. Have you been harmed by illegal immigration? Are you on the unemployment figures? >> Spoken like someone who has never had to have product made over there. If >> you knew how many of the parts manufacturers operated, you won't want >> your brake calipers coming from china, let alone the engine block. Or the >> assembled engine for that matter. > I have many products that were made "over there". How many did you do the development work on? > The overwhelming majority work just fine. Try product development with the stuff made over there sometime, here's a hint, they don't. But if you're a typical throw it away buy a new one american, you probably don't even know enough to notice. > Funny that your attitude toward China is the > same as many had in the 1950s and 1960s regarding the Japanese. No, it isn't, and the two are not comparable. And I am tired of ignorant people trying to say it is the same. Japan was an industrialized nation long before it started sending product to the US. REmember, we fought a modern, industrial supported war against them. They started the war with one of the finest fighter aircraft of the time, of their own design. Their manufacturing and technology was as well advanced as anyone's at the outbreak of hostilities. Japan was not a tyranny in the 1950s or later. Japan didn't use slave labor in the 1950s or later. Japan acted to protect the environment, there is worker safety in Japan, labor wasn't really all that cheap either, land and other business costs were significant. Japan listened to _Americans_ that american companies wouldn't listen to. They applied those lessons. They developed products that american companies weren't interested in (VCRs, smaller cars, etc). Japanese companies competed to make a better product. All of that combined is their success. China, on the other hand is just cheap labor. US companies relocate manufacturing there and try to teach them how to make the products. The culture in China is to cheat every step of the process to maximize profit and send crap out the door hoping it would not be noticed. China's success is cheap labor, little-to-no environmental regulation, no pressure to meet CO2 targets, no labor safety rules to speak of, and fixed against the dollar currency. If you had the least bit of experience with either nation's companies with regards to developing a product or their histories you would know better than to say the two are the same. Japanese companies made better products and won in the market place from a more or less even footing. American companies move their facilities to China, putting american workers in wage competition with the chinese workers. American companies relocate to china and avoid costly environmental regulations, worker safety rules, and a whole host of other basics that cost money. It's complete apples to oranges. > Keep up > the whining and bitching instead of taking them seriously and your > industry will become irrelevant as they run circles around you. You have something made over there and don't watch them. Faster than I can write this post they'll be overheating a subsitute resin that you didn't approve and a few months later the field returns will roll in. That isn't changing any time soon. Actually that's one place there are some high paying jobs. Babysitting over in China. > I see > history repeating itself and you are going to sit there and let it > happen and blame everyone but yourself for getting beaten by them. There's nothing I can do to stop an employer moving manufacturing to China. Nothing. I learned by experience that adding millions of the dollars to the bottom line isn't even enough, because they'll still think they save more paying slave wages in China. >> We still manufacture plenty of goods. The reality is we have >> transitioned into a service economy from and industrial economy. It has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What value does our currency have? If we have nothing they want, if we > are a 'service' economy, what good are we? You have a very simplistic view. We contribute technology advances, services and even export goods. Being a service based economy isn't a bad thing. >> We consume far more than any other country on earth. I just can't see >> how we can manufacture this quantity of stuff economically. > > We did for a damn long time. Most of the factories aren't closing because > they cannot meet demand, but that profit margins aren't high enough to > satisify wall street. We did because our consumption rate was far lower along with labor costs. Profits margins aren't high enough because cost to produce the goods in this country are too high. The public will gravitate toward the lowest price and if the imported goods are lower priced that is what they will buy. The quality between domestic and imported goods is the same for nearly everything. The public is driving manufacturing out of the country more than anyone or anything. If we all decided to buy American then we would import far less. We don't. >> The middle class is still alive and well here. The work force has to adjust to >> changing economic times. Somtimes this adjustment is easy and other >> times it is painful. It has always been this way. > > Just live on chinese wages and we'll be fine. If we lived in China we would be fine. We don't and therefore we don't live on Chinese wages. >> Here are a few jobs: janitorial work, construction labor, migrant farm >> labor, fast food positions, garment manufacturing. > > I've seen americans do everything in that list but farm labor. But when > there were still farms around here, in my grandparents day, they did some > of that. They "did" it but do they want to do it if they have a choice? Hell no they don't. Would you be a janitor or want your kids to be a janitor? >> The unemployment rate is 4.5%. It can't get much lower. > > Check how it's calculated some time. So now the number is no good? It is as accurate as it can be. It is comparatively low, of that there is no dispute. >>> Bullshit. Wages where significant numbers have moved in to do the jobs at >>> best remain flat as inflation marches on. Most go down. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Again, did I state unemployed, and still on the unemployment rolls? No. > You keep trying to change what I wrote to suit an easy counter argument. You seem to believe immigrants affect wages and I believe differently. >>> In the terms of lowest bidder, sure. But there's someone left waiting in >>> the home depot parking lot that doesn't work. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then we are agreed, increased labor supply brings down wages. The market > decides. Flood the market with illegal alien labor and wages drop. Increased labor supply brings down wages when there is a scarcity of jobs. This currently isn't the case. When the unemployment rate rises substantially then it might be true. >>> I didn't write low paying, I wrote work for less. > >> Less than who? > > Less than they did before. Before what? Besides, wages can't drop below the set minimum no matter how many illegals are here looking for jobs. >> If there is no one competing with them except other >> immigrants then who exactly is getting hurt? > > The guy who used to do meat packing for $15/hr who went on to some other > job for $12/hr because meat packing now pays $8/hr because of the illegal > aliens flooding the labor market at the meat packing plant. Or maybe the guy left the meat packing job and now makes $18/hr in another factory. Maybe the guy obtained a skill and is making $30/hr in a high tech plant. It cuts both ways. >> You seem to think they are here undercutting American workers which >> isn't true most of the time. They are here doing jobs that Americans [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > don't pay enough because the market, filled with illegal aliens on the > labor supply side, doesn't bare the wages it once did. You are making assumptions that wages are dropping. This isn't true. Wages, on the whole, have increased. I would give your argument more validity if the unemployment rate was high. It isn't so your view that immigrants are taking away jobs isn't correct. >>>> in the 4.5% range. Wages aren't going down at all. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's an indicator of political BS mostly. Yeah, sure. >> If you can't find a legal to fill a job then you will hire an illegal. > > Could just increase the wage so an american would take the job. But why > do that, when mexicans have flooded the labor market and dropped the > price. So janitors should make as much as skilled labor? Do you think Americans will go for increased inflation to overpay unskilled labor? >>> Wages go down when labor supply increases. The reduction of wages due to >>> illlegal aliens is well documented btw. Unemployment rate doesn't track [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This seems to be your mantra. You don't seem to grasp that it is > irrelevant. You don't seem to grasp its relevance. >> illegals aren't depressing wages. they are filling a demand. They >> aren't taking jobs from anyone. If they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > form of experience they don't have. Have you been harmed by illegal > immigration? Are you on the unemployment figures? Wages aren't dropping. Your assumption is wrong. >>> Spoken like someone who has never had to have product made over there. If >>> you knew how many of the parts manufacturers operated, you won't want [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How many did you do the development work on? None. What is the relevance? >> The overwhelming majority work just fine. > > Try product development with the stuff made over there sometime, here's a > hint, they don't. But if you're a typical throw it away buy a new one > american, you probably don't even know enough to notice. So do YOUR job and keep the quality up. That is why they pay you. If you don't do your job then I'll buy my widgets from someone who is doing theirs. The computer you are using to post was made everywhere but here in the USA. It seems to be mumming along just fine. How may of its components were made in China? >> Funny that your attitude toward China is the >> same as many had in the 1950s and 1960s regarding the Japanese. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > dollars to the bottom line isn't even enough, because they'll still think > they save more paying slave wages in China. While you are bitching, moaning, complaining and ignoring reality the Chinese are plotting how they are going to eat your lunch. You are not going to get away from working with the them. If you're not careful they will learn what they need to know and then they won't need YOU anymore. Keep underestimating them and your company will be looking for a new business model in the near future. History does repeat itself. > You have a very simplistic view. We contribute technology advances, This won't last. Engineering goes where the manufacturing goes. > We did because our consumption rate was far lower along with labor > costs. Profits margins aren't high enough because cost to produce the > goods in this country are too high. Not 'high enough' to satisify arbitary standards of greed. But more than enough to be profitable and stable. > The public will gravitate toward > the lowest price and if the imported goods are lower priced that is what > they will buy. And that's the sad thing, the first one to move, forces all to eventually move. > If we lived in China we would be fine. We don't and therefore we don't > live on Chinese wages. But the competition is between us in the USA and them in China. They can eeek out a living in the company dorm. We can't. Who wins the race to the bottom? > Would you be a janitor or want your kids to be a janitor? It's honest work, and I've had jobs close to as 'bad' as that. There are large numbers of citizens who could benefit from jobs like that, well at least at what they used to pay. >> Then we are agreed, increased labor supply brings down wages. The market >> decides. Flood the market with illegal alien labor and wages drop. > Increased labor supply brings down wages when there is a scarcity of > jobs. This currently isn't the case. When the unemployment rate rises > substantially then it might be true. That's why the meat packing plant that was raided and it's illegal alien employees sent back to where they came from was flooded with applications after it hit the news..... nobody needing a job... >> The guy who used to do meat packing for $15/hr who went on to some other >> job for $12/hr because meat packing now pays $8/hr because of the illegal >> aliens flooding the labor market at the meat packing plant. > Or maybe the guy left the meat packing job and now makes $18/hr in > another factory. Maybe the guy obtained a skill and is making $30/hr in > a high tech plant. It cuts both ways. Maybe he did go the other way, the job he had still pays less than it did before. > You are making assumptions that wages are dropping. This isn't true. > Wages, on the whole, have increased. I didn't argue on the whole. I argued in jobs where illegal aliens have flooded the labor market. > I would give your argument more > validity if the unemployment rate was high. It isn't so your view that > immigrants are taking away jobs isn't correct. The unemployment rate is irrelevant to my argument. I grow tired of this, you don't get it and won't get it, and I believe we've been through this before. It's a waste of my time. <snip, unread> >> You have a very simplistic view. We contribute technology advances, > > This won't last. Engineering goes where the manufacturing goes. Maybe and then again maybe not. Neither one of us knows. >> We did because our consumption rate was far lower along with labor >> costs. Profits margins aren't high enough because cost to produce the >> goods in this country are too high. > > Not 'high enough' to satisify arbitary standards of greed. But more than > enough to be profitable and stable. One man's greed is another man's reasonable profit. I'm not going to judge what a person should consider reasonable. I let my feelings be known with my wallet. >> The public will gravitate toward >> the lowest price and if the imported goods are lower priced that is what >> they will buy. > > And that's the sad thing, the first one to move, forces all to eventually > move. Sad? If I can buy a widget made in China for 1/2 the cost of one made here then the decision is simple. There are just some goods that aren't practical to manufacture here. There is no right or wrong about it. It is just economics. >> If we lived in China we would be fine. We don't and therefore we don't >> live on Chinese wages. > > But the competition is between us in the USA and them in China. They can > eeek out a living in the company dorm. We can't. Who wins the race to the > bottom? Who says we are racing to the bottom? That is just a plain wrong assumption. What China is going through is nearly the same as what this country went through in the past. >> Would you be a janitor or want your kids to be a janitor? > > It's honest work, and I've had jobs close to as 'bad' as that. There are > large numbers of citizens who could benefit from jobs like that, well at > least at what they used to pay. You dodged the question. Would you want that job for yourself or your children? >>> Then we are agreed, increased labor supply brings down wages. The market >>> decides. Flood the market with illegal alien labor and wages drop. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > employees sent back to where they came from was flooded with applications > after it hit the news..... nobody needing a job... Probably because the people in the area won't move to where the decent jobs are located. >>> The guy who used to do meat packing for $15/hr who went on to some other >>> job for $12/hr because meat packing now pays $8/hr because of the illegal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Maybe he did go the other way, the job he had still pays less than it did > before. Maybe he won the lottery too. >> You are making assumptions that wages are dropping. This isn't true. >> Wages, on the whole, have increased. > > I didn't argue on the whole. I argued in jobs where illegal aliens have > flooded the labor market. So now we are being selective? >> I would give your argument more >> validity if the unemployment rate was high. It isn't so your view that >> immigrants are taking away jobs isn't correct. > > The unemployment rate is irrelevant to my argument. I can't help your lack of understanding. > I grow tired of this, you don't get it and won't get it, and I believe > we've been through this before. It's a waste of my time. This is where we typically end up, isn't it? 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. > Yea, I know. > What started all this is when the government allowed foreign [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > future. > Maybe Ford should just have their cars built domestically by a foreign 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? > Posts ignore numerous facts that 'professional spokesmen' > intentionally forget to mention. [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] >> 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 pissed 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 a.ses" 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] >>> future. >>> Maybe Ford should just have their cars built domestically by a foreign > I was waiting for the 265 horse 3.5 liter to come out in it next year. I am > pissed 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. > 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 > pissed that they are going to re-badge it and call it Taurus. I agree with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 157 lines] >>>> future. >>>> Maybe Ford should just have their cars built domestically by a foreign > 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. >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I haven't seen any actual production numbers yet. They should have made > 1,500-2,000 of them by now. >>>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> I haven't seen any actual production numbers yet. They should have made >> 1,500-2,000 of them by now. > ...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 > 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. >> The 500's Duratec(from the Taurus) 3.0 is 70 Hp per liter. Sometimes >> more, sometimes less depending on trim. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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... > >> The 500's Duratec(from the Taurus) 3.0 is 70 Hp per liter. Sometimes > >> more, sometimes less depending on trim. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. >> >> The 500's Duratec(from the Taurus) 3.0 is 70 Hp per liter. Sometimes >> >> more, sometimes less depending on trim. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 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? > 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. > Base engine in Ford Taurus was 51 Hp/liter even in 2005. A base > engine must do 70 Hp per liter in early 1990s. Base models you are so fixated on: 2007 Camry - 66 Hp per liter (158 @ 6000 RPM) - Torque: 161 ft·lb @4000 RPM 2007 Accord - 70 Hp per liter (166 @ 6000 RPM) - Torque: 160 ft·lb @4000 RPM 2007 Altima - 70 Hp per liter (175 @ 5600 RPM) - Torque: 180 ft·lb @4000 RPM 2007 Ford 500 - 68 Hp per liter (203 @ 5750) - Torque: 207 ft·lb @4500 RPM (2008 will be 71.5 Hp per liter - Torque: 245 ft·lb @4500 RPM) Toyota should be ashamed. Rob >> The 1989 Ford Taurus SHO 3.0 liter V-6 made 220 horsepower... Thats 73.3 >> horsepower power per liter... [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > someone who so hates America as to not buy using free market > principles and who does not do simple arithmetic. I dunno, my 5.0 only has 55 Hp/liter.... about the same as a Taurus.... but man, does that car kick a.s. I think your entire premise is invalid. And if I put a blower on it, I should be at 500hp? Think again. Brad >>> The 1989 Ford Taurus SHO 3.0 liter V-6 made 220 horsepower... Thats 73.3 >>> horsepower power per liter... [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > And if I put a blower on it, I should be at 500hp? Think again. IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L may be on the low side for hp/litre but it delivers a lot of torque. Torque is what accelerates your car not hp. Historically, American consumers prefer a car with a good torque curve over one with high end hp. That is why the domestic auto makers tend to gravitate toward larger displacement engines which provide a broad flat torque curve. Foreign buyers are comfortable with high winding lower torque engines that deliver better gas mileage mainly due to their smaller displacement. I would take an engine with a nice broad torque curve over a high winding small displacement engine. I don't want to have to drive a car like I stole it to get some performance from it. Other's preference may be different. > IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. > One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. ... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > like I stole it to get some performance from it. Other's preference may > be different. BINGO. Rob > IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. > One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L > may be on the low side for hp/litre but it delivers a lot of torque. > Torque is what accelerates your car not hp. Torque times speed is the horsepower. Either have high speed or high torque. Engine adapts to a changing load by something called a transmission and drive train. Any higher horsepower engine can have more torque - simply adapt to a changing load. And so we install transmissions. This need for 'high torque' was a big spin to promote low performance, obsolete technology V-8s to the naive. Need more torque? Then select a lower gear. Need more acceleration? No way around higher horsepower. Any engine can be geared for more torque. Meanwhile, how to make an engine 'feel' more powerful. Make noise. A truly high performance engines not only accelerates faster. It also leaves a driver unaware of how much faster the vehicle is accelerating - because energy goes into acceleration rather than into noise and vibration. Let's see what true sport cars do. Mazda Miata: 85 Hp/liter. Lotus Elise: 105 Hp/liter. Audi TT has two engines with turbo: 100 / 125; or 78 Hp/liter without. Porshe 911: three engines - 90/88/100. Porshe Boxer: 89/88. Honda S2000: 108. Pontiac Solsitce 74. Chrysler Crossfire: 67 and 103 with a supercharger. Ford Mustang: 52 / 62. All are only fuel injected unless stated otherwise. Some sport cars are nothing more than standard performance. Then hype promotes a myth just as hype also sells Listerine, Geritol, and younger skin from the Pond's Institute. A sports car typically does what all cars are expected to do 20 years later. If I recall correctly, Porsche was doing 70 Hp/liter in the 1970s. 1960s Corvettes and Shelby Mustangs also once did those numbers. So what happened? 'Bean counters' started designing all Ford and GM products. They promoted myths to motorheads so as to blame it all on anything but auto company management. Myths such as high torque V-8s. Engines were not 'detuned'. They were cost controlled - which is why costs increased and performance decreased. Read stories about GM's Mona Lisa room to appreciate why they had to promote myths about lower revving engines. Yes, you cannot machine engines to 0.0001 tolerances when using technology only capable of 0.001. Those HP/liter numbers demonstrate what a decent sports car does when using current technology manufacturing machines. Those who make lesser products mask their lesser designs with more pistons and myths. >> IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. >> One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > torque? Then select a lower gear. Need more acceleration? No way > around higher horsepower. Any engine can be geared for more torque. You obviously haven't had the pleasure of feeling 460 ft-lbs of torque at the rear wheels just off idle. I have and it FEELS GOOD! All that toque available across the rpm range puts a big SEG on my face. Why limit myself to having to keep the engine RPMs in a narrow high winding range to get some acceleration? I like rolling into the throttle in third gear at 2,000 rpm and feeling like I was shot out of a sling shot all the way to the redline without ever having to change a gear. A close second in rolling along in third gear at 2,500 rpm, mashing down the throttle and melting the rear tires into the pavement for as long as I feel like it just because I can. Get my drift? > Meanwhile, how to make an engine 'feel' more powerful. Make noise. Isn't this the rice burner mantra? > A truly high performance engines not only accelerates faster. It also > leaves a driver unaware of how much faster the vehicle is accelerating > - because energy goes into acceleration rather than into noise and > vibration. Try 460 ft-lbs of rwtq. It will make you tingle all over. ;) > Let's see what true sport cars do. Mazda Miata: 85 Hp/liter. Lotus > Elise: 105 Hp/liter. Audi TT has two engines with turbo: 100 / 125; > or 78 Hp/liter without. Porshe 911: three engines - 90/88/100. > Porshe Boxer: 89/88. Honda S2000: 108. Pontiac Solsitce 74. > Chrysler Crossfire: 67 and 103 with a supercharger. Ford Mustang: > 52 / 62. First, the Mustang isn't a sports car. It is a Pony car. There is a difference. Besides, my '89 LX makes about 100 hp/litre. The GT500 makes 93 hp/litre off the showroom floor and a whole boat load of torque from idle to redline. Throw a twin screw blower on a GT500 and it will make close to 130 hp/litre with just a new tune and never having to remove the valve covers. > All are only fuel injected unless stated otherwise. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Corvettes and Shelby Mustangs also once did those numbers. So what > happened? Cars aren't developed to what you, or I, think is correct. IMO, the overall quality of all new cars are very good. There really isn't that much difference between them when comparing apples to apples. > 'Bean counters' started designing all Ford and GM products. They Bean counters can't design anything. They aren't engineers. > promoted myths to motorheads so as to blame it all on anything but > auto company management. Myths such as high torque V-8s. Engines [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > engines. Yes, you cannot machine engines to 0.0001 tolerances when > using technology only capable of 0.001. You wouldn't want an engine built to a 0.0001 OR 0.001 tolerance. Every engine needs "slop" built in to it so the parts can receive lubrication. Technology has advanced to where all automakers have the ability to machine parts equally well. IMO, this is why quality between brands is so close. What sells a car comes down to style and marketing more than quality. I don't think Toyota makes cars that are light years ahead of GM and Ford but they have succeeded in convincing a large part of the population that they are far superior. Kudos to them for pulling it off and shame on Ford and GM for letting them get away with it. > Those HP/liter numbers > demonstrate what a decent sports car does when using current > technology manufacturing machines. Those who make lesser products > mask their lesser designs with more pistons and myths. All I can tell you is I prefer the Corvette Z06 pushrod engine over a Honda S2000 engine. You probably know why. >> IMO, talking about horsepower is just part of the performance equation. >> One also has to look at the torque rating of an engine. Your old 5.0L [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > technology manufacturing machines. Those who make lesser products > mask their lesser designs with more pistons and myths. Yeah, maybe... But when the light turns green and I mash the gas, the only thing that passes my 5.0 are the car's taillights!!! Yahoo! What a frickin' joy that car is to drive! That's what a sports car is all about. Big, long, smokey burnouts, tons of torque off idle and an engine that sounds like the world is coming to an end. And for the record, all of the 'big 3' produce cars that make 100hp/litre. If you want to drive a Miata, fill your boots. Ford owns 20% of Mazda so at least the profits are going somewhere good. Brad PS: Porsche was an inch away from bankruptcy recently, so I don't think people really care what horsepower per litre cars generate. > I would take an engine with a nice broad torque curve over a high > winding small displacement engine. I don't want to have to drive a car > like I stole it to get some performance from it. Other's preference may > be different When hp/liter number increases, then the engine curve becomes broader; across a wider range of RPMs. It makes a vehicle easier to drive. To solve the narrow torque curve of low performance gasoline engines, then increase engine displacement. Mask the defect with a bigger engine: "More Power". More power moves the entire curve vertically; causes that curve to be wider (horizontally) at its base. To move that curve vertically, then increase displacement. But innovative engines widen the curve without increasing displacement. Look at some numbers. A car at 3000 pounds has a 200 HP engine. A 60,000 truck then must have many thousands of horsepower? Of course not. Trucks only need 300 and 500 Hp engines because the engine adapts to a changing load. How do we solve the narrow curve for gasoline engines? Either we grossly oversize the engine to mask an engine that does not adapt to changing loads. Or we innovate using technologies such as the 70+ Hp/liter engine, turbo and superchargers, and hybrid technologies. To an accountant, such innovation only increases cost which is why both Ford and GM feared even the hybrid; why top management stifled innovation even when given $millions by the US government in early 1990s to innovate. We should be asking what happened to that $100 million. Higher revving engines are more fuel efficient because heat of combustion spends less time being absorbed by the block. Why must a rotary engine spin even faster? The surface area verses displacement is so much higher as to require very high revs. Too much heat would otherwise be absorbed by the block. Superior engines rev higher. But when a company's manufacturing is still using 1960 machine tools, et al, then it is easier (less expensive) to make lower revving engines. Accountants also fear 'unnecessary' capital expenditures. They cannot measure innovation; therefore cost control it. As technology improves, then engines have a wider operating range - provide more useful power over a wider range of RPMs. This is but another factor found in higher Hp/liter engines - what engineers would design when allowed to design the best rather than cost control. Under a 'bean counter' such as Jacques Nasser, that technology could not be implemented. But as seen (finally) in those 2007 models, Ford engineers were permitted to implement engines with a wider operating range - standard performance engines. Engineers were finally able to abandon long obsolete 50 Hp/liter crap engines. Appreciate why companies make crap products when top management are 'bean counters' or lawyers - especially managers don't even use the product. To appreciate the problem in Ford, read DeLorean's 1970s book "On a Clear Day, You can See GM". Those same symptoms still exist where companies are in trouble - and then start blaming the workers or running to government for protection. World's best innovators are American. When a product is not world class, then first look at the top boss. Those 50 Hp/liter engines were a classic symptom of bad top management and probably why some arguments between William Clay and Jacque Nasser may have been violent. > When hp/liter number increases, then the engine curve becomes > broader; across a wider range of RPMs. It makes a vehicle easier to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > To move that curve vertically, then increase displacement. But > innovative engines widen the curve without increasing displacement. Sooooo... why are all stern drive boats, including Volvo, powered by iron block Chevrolet & Ford engines? Only one gear ratio too... & Toyota couldn't cut it in the ski boat field. Their V-8 was a disaster. Rob > > I would take an engine with a nice broad torque curve over a high > > winding small displacement engine. I don't want to have to drive a car [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To move that curve vertically, then increase displac |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message