If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Ford: Our cars don't suck - gas is just too expensive   (money.cnn.com) divider line 369
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

14430 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2008 at 6:12 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



369 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-23 12:33:40 PM
ghare: Gas is where it should be, it was artificialy low in the US for far too long. The sudden correction is the problem.

I'm gonna go ahead and agree. They said that gas would be at 4 dollars a gallon in 2005, and when it didn't happen people figured it never would I'm guessing. Now that the prophecy is true people are scrambling to figure out other options.
 
2008-05-23 12:53:38 PM
Kreigenstein: Thunderpipes: Put it in other examples. Some of the best fighters in WW2 used big, air cooled radials. Complicated engines with complicated boost systems, cooling systems had better power to weight, but were much more difficult to keep running, and less reliable.

Engineering has changed certainly, but general rules have not.

You mean like the Merlin 130 that was 27Liters and produced over 2000 HP for a total output of approximately 76HP/Liter?

That's not exactly proving your point you know.


Umm, you realize the Merlin, while a great engine, was also much more difficult to keep running than say, the 2,000 hp 18-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial used in the F4U Corsair and the P-47 Thunderbolt, or the 1973 HP BMW 801S that powered the FW-190. By the way, the fastest piston engined plane of the war, was a P-47 with the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp rated at 2,800 HP. It was about twice the weight of most fighters, yet reached level flight speeds of 505 mph. These engines could lose parts, be shot up, even cylinders totally fried and keep flying, where a well placed single bullet could cause the Merlin to fail by puncturing a radiator line.

Quit talking if you do not know the subject matter. More complicated engines require more maintenance, period.
 
2008-05-23 01:32:28 PM
Thunderpipes

14.3 mpg on my last tank with my Mustang, and I have to use super unleaded. I love it. Why is everyone so anal about a few bucks?

Mine (stock '08 GT convertible) averages a tick under 18 mpg combined city/highway. Acceptable, given the nature of the vehicle. Solid car, no squeaks/rattles. No troubles at all, in fact.

I don't understand all the hate on Ford. My wife drives an '06 Fusion and it's been perfect for 40000+ miles. My previous car was an '02 Taurus that performed flawlessly as well.


/ '02 Taurus to '08 Mustang = kids grown up and moved out..
 
2008-05-23 01:39:04 PM
DeadGeek: The reason that this idea never saw the light of day is that the union workers they were required to use due to their union contract weren't skilled enough to manufacture the parts.

I don't buy it. (and this smells very much like troll skat to me...)

The thing that has killed new technology in "American" auto manufacturing is not "stoopid Union guys not smart enough to install it," it is stoopid CEO's. They learned nothing from the near collapse of their business back in the '70s when Toyota and Honda took all their customers because their gas mileage and reliability sucked back then. If they kill a new technology, it is because bean-counters tell them, "nope, too costly, not worth the extra money."

If a new technology item is properly engineered, their is no question that the American worker can build it. I bought a couple of Saturns back in the 90's and was really happy about what American workers (and American designers) could do. Sadly, GM has decided to engulf Saturn and turn it into another house organ on a rotting corpse.

The heads of Ford, GM, and Chrysler love to blame labor, but even though their companies showed catastrophic losses in 2005, 2006, and 2007 they still voted to give themselves tens of millions dollar bonuses on top of their multi-million dollar salaries and continue to claim, "Uhhh... we can't make a profit because the UAW has us over a barrel... whaaaaa."

That's why I sold my stock in their companies years ago.

AND if you think because you buy a Ford, Chrysler, or Chevy that your buying "American" you are sadly misguided. Most of the assembly is done over-seas.

BTW: If you are one of those "Ford is the GREATEST!" guys and drive one of those window-rattling fast-fast-fast muscle cars? I've got two things to say:
1)If you drive a car that gets crappy gas mileage, don't complain about the price of gas (since you are part of the problem.)
2)I'd like to taste the sweet-sweet tears of your bitter disappointment when you take your car to the quarter mile against an electric Tesla Roadster. Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Image and hype CAN sell cars, but after a while, if you don't have quality to back it up, only the idiots will keep buying.

My current car is a hybrid, my next will be a plug-in hybrid or if I'm lucky... full electric. I'm tired of shelling out cash to the fark-tards running the oil companies.
 
2008-05-23 01:43:59 PM
Thunderpipes: Umm, you realize the Merlin, while a great engine, was also much more difficult to keep running than say, the 2,000 hp 18-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial used in the F4U Corsair and the P-47 Thunderbolt, or the 1973 HP BMW 801S that powered the FW-190.

Early Merlins were unreliable, the later 130 versions were not.

But I am sure that you know that already.

Thunderpipes:
Quit talking if you do not know the subject matter. More complicated engines require more maintenance, period.


Who said complicated? We're talking about stressed (according to he who made the claim). Higher HP/L output engines should be more unreliable. Enough with the anecdotal data, go find some real data. Until then, you are making things up.
 
2008-05-23 01:49:39 PM
GentleBrutal: DeadGeek: The reason that this idea never saw the light of day is that the union workers they were required to use due to their union contract weren't skilled enough to manufacture the parts.

I don't buy it. (and this smells very much like troll skat to me...)

The thing that has killed new technology in "American" auto manufacturing is not "stoopid Union guys not smart enough to install it," it is stoopid CEO's. They learned nothing from the near collapse of their business back in the '70s when Toyota and Honda took all their customers because their gas mileage and reliability sucked back then. If they kill a new technology, it is because bean-counters tell them, "nope, too costly, not worth the extra money."

If a new technology item is properly engineered, their is no question that the American worker can build it. I bought a couple of Saturns back in the 90's and was really happy about what American workers (and American designers) could do. Sadly, GM has decided to engulf Saturn and turn it into another house organ on a rotting corpse.

The heads of Ford, GM, and Chrysler love to blame labor, but even though their companies showed catastrophic losses in 2005, 2006, and 2007 they still voted to give themselves tens of millions dollar bonuses on top of their multi-million dollar salaries and continue to claim, "Uhhh... we can't make a profit because the UAW has us over a barrel... whaaaaa."

That's why I sold my stock in their companies years ago.

AND if you think because you buy a Ford, Chrysler, or Chevy that your buying "American" you are sadly misguided. Most of the assembly is done over-seas.

BTW: If you are one of those "Ford is the GREATEST!" guys and drive one of those window-rattling fast-fast-fast muscle cars? I've got two things to say:
1)If you drive a car that gets crappy gas mileage, don't complain about the price of gas (since you are part of the problem.)
2)I'd like to taste the sweet-sweet tears of your bitter disappointment when you take your car to the quarter mile against an electric Tesla Roadster. Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Image and hype CAN sell cars, but after a while, if you don't have quality to back it up, only the idiots will keep buying.

My current car is a hybrid, my next will be a plug-in hybrid or if I'm lucky... full electric. I'm tired of shelling out cash to the fark-tards running the oil companies.


Dude, nobody complained about the mileage of their Mustangs etc...

In fact, I showed that I get respectable mileage (above industry average) because most of my travel is on the highway.

And the day I see a Tesla at the track... yeah you can come taste my "tears" weirdo.

Never... gonna... happen.

The Tesla Roadster, farks favorite car that nobody will ever actually own or drive.
 
2008-05-23 01:58:35 PM
seal614: And the day I see a Tesla at the track... yeah you can come taste my "tears" weirdo.

Never... gonna... happen.


Technically it's not a track but I guarantee you it will make appearances at autocross events where it's shorter range isn't a liability.

seal614:
The Tesla Roadster, farks favorite car that nobody will ever actually own or drive


You're probably right, however, in our lifetime we will be driving a derivative of that car.

I like the idea of the car because it represents a future of cars that I find particularly appealing. Not in the hippy-save-the-planet kind of boring way, that's a Prius. The Tesla demonstrates that the future of whatever-fuel-other-than-gas can be cool.
 
2008-05-23 02:11:55 PM
Kreigenstein: Thunderpipes: Umm, you realize the Merlin, while a great engine, was also much more difficult to keep running than say, the 2,000 hp 18-cylinder Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp radial used in the F4U Corsair and the P-47 Thunderbolt, or the 1973 HP BMW 801S that powered the FW-190.

Early Merlins were unreliable, the later 130 versions were not.

But I am sure that you know that already.

Thunderpipes:
Quit talking if you do not know the subject matter. More complicated engines require more maintenance, period.

Who said complicated? We're talking about stressed (according to he who made the claim). Higher HP/L output engines should be more unreliable. Enough with the anecdotal data, go find some real data. Until then, you are making things up.


Smaller engines are more complicated when they are geared for high performance. You are the only one here who claims smaller eingines at higher rpms are reliable and low maintenance. No facts will cloud that Icy Hot Stuntaz mind. It is called history. Read it.
 
2008-05-23 02:46:15 PM
Thunderpipes:
No facts will cloud that Icy Hot Stuntaz mind. It is called history. Read it.


Well, historically (since the late 60's), engines have gotten smaller, more complicated and yet more reliable.

But according to you that simply isn't possible.
 
2008-05-23 02:46:33 PM
Thunderpipes: fenianfark: Thunderpipes: 0-60 in 4.8? Thats it?

That's it? That is pretty damn fast for a stock car that costs less than 40k. Supposedly your car goes .1 seconds faster to 60? Anyways, I bet the Subaru would be more consistent in its launches with the AWD.

American car enthusiasts that only look at performance in terms of straight-line acceleration? It is more common than you think.

/Your Mustang would have its ass handed to it on a track.

Dumbass,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/powerlaps.shtml

Note the Roush Mustang has faster lap times than the subby. Your misconception that a go-kart is better on the track is just wrong, and wishful thinking.

And any real man would laugh at the looks of that little can opener.


Wow. Stay classy with the vituperative remarks like 'dumbass' and 'icy hot stuntaz'.

Anyways, there is a major problem with the lap time you linked to. By your own admission, your car is not a true Roush and I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) does not have the full suspension of a Roush. Probably the S/C, intake and exhaust.

Also, I really doubt that the lap time was for a convertible. Your convertible weighs more and has more chassis-flex than a coupe.Yours is not the same car. Period. Your car may be quick, this I am not doubting. However, your dismissal of Japanese cars because they are not manly enough or whatever you think is inane.

Just remember folks, the only replacement for displacement is technology.
 
2008-05-23 02:47:16 PM
crazyemi: I'm going to join in the Mustang owners here. Yes, mine is just a V6, but it has plenty of HP (it runs 100 no problem on the highway, with more to go.). Also, it gets about 18 miles to the gallon, which is a little better than the V8. Although a lot of people hate the color, I love it, and it's really fun to drive.

18mpg?

My 5.7 LS1 2000 Camaro consistently gets 22mpg in mixed driving.

And it'll still beat a new GT.
 
2008-05-23 03:00:31 PM
Nate57Dawg: I am 6'4" tall and weigh 290 pounds. Would I fit in your Ford Fiesta?

You don't need a truck, you need a pair of walking shoes there Jabba.
 
2008-05-23 03:03:31 PM
Thunderpipes:
Smaller engines are more complicated when they are geared for high performance. You are the only one here who claims smaller eingines at higher rpms are reliable and low maintenance. No facts will cloud that Icy Hot Stuntaz mind. It is called history. Read it.


Not the only one. High-torque engines put their own brand of stress on engines and other drivetrain components in the form of high chamber pressures and, well, torque. Higher revolutions create friction and therefore heat. Both of these can be overcome with proper materials, lubricants, and all-around engineering. The fact of the matter, though, is that American engineering has been sorely lacking in the last couple of decades. Some great designs, sure, but mostly under-engineered. For instance, I loved my old Neon, but the frameless windows were an abortion and the thing blew head gaskets like it was cool. shiat like that would never have found its way into a contemporary German of Japanese car.

And don't tell me you're claiming Mustangs are more reliable than Integras (I bring these up because you and kreigenstin seem to be the primaries here). A high-revving I4 has about the same number of moving parts as a lower-revving one, it just needs to be manufactured to tighter tolerances. Honda, Toyota and others have shown us that this is easily done in this day and age.
 
2008-05-23 03:03:45 PM
fenianfark: Anyways, there is a major problem with the lap time you linked to.

Or that he conveniently chooses the Roush as his example that costs at least 13k more than the cars he compares it to and claims it's 'best bang for the buck'.

They tested another mustang too, The GT500. The time for the Mustang GT500 you ask? 1:30 flat, and that's for a 500HP supercharged version.

The stock time must be very sad indeed, to bad when Top Gear the Stig didn't get his hands on it, I guess it would be lucky to get a 1:32-1:34, which puts it in the same range as every other 3500lb/300HP car that costs around 27k.
 
2008-05-23 03:18:38 PM
I'm trying to decide if it chaps my behind that we'll be bailing out American Car companies once they fail.

Part of it is our responsibility, deciding to drive huge gas guzzling monster trucks, but the other part is their failure to compete in the even larger compact car market.
 
2008-05-23 05:33:37 PM
I just had a flashback to the 80s.

Big 3 automaker with a reputation of poor quality and facing slumping sales in the face of skyrocketing fuel prices turns their back on what the consumer wants and needs and tries to sell products with bigger and bigger V8s and more and more options.

www.tocmp.com

Can I get my F350 with a landau roof and rich corinthian leather?
 
2008-05-23 05:40:50 PM
GlassWalker: crazyemi: I'm going to join in the Mustang owners here. Yes, mine is just a V6, but it has plenty of HP (it runs 100 no problem on the highway, with more to go.). Also, it gets about 18 miles to the gallon, which is a little better than the V8. Although a lot of people hate the color, I love it, and it's really fun to drive.

Don't hate on the v6's. As you say, they run just fine and get better mileage.

/


Oh, I'm totally not hating on my v6, it's just different compared to my old car. I used to drive a 2000 GT and with a cold air intake and a tune with some other mods, it would run 130 no problem. That car was a beast, but the 14 mpg killed me. I drive 50 miles every day back and forth to school, so I was spending 100's in gas every week. Unfortunately, some black ice killed the GT, so I went for a newer v6. However, going from a GT to a v6 was totally different, but I don't regret getting my new car. And yes, the 6er has about 210 HP and it will run pretty fast too!

i3.photobucket.com

/My GT, at the lot right after I signed the papers for her.
 
2008-05-23 06:18:50 PM
Fark Master Flex: I just had a flashback to the 80s.

Big 3 automaker with a reputation of poor quality and facing slumping sales in the face of skyrocketing fuel prices turns their back on what the consumer wants and needs and tries to sell products with bigger and bigger V8s and more and more options.



Can I get my F350 with a landau roof and rich corinthian leather?


Good god, it's brand new and already looks like the doors are full of bondo.
I forgot what Epic Fail looked like.

/Some tard at work is selling a 1984 Cadillac for $2500.
//are you Kidding me man?
 
2008-05-24 12:06:55 PM
I could have swore the Contour was the US version of the Mondeo in the years that it was sold. I own a '97 Contour and plan on running the thing into the ground. I get around 30 mpg and it has decent handling and power. My only concern is the body rusting out before the transmission goes kaput.

/@110,000 miles now
//figure good for another 50,000 at least
 
Displayed 19 of 369 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report