Actually that last issue is the are where we differ in opinion. The Vette looks better on a spec sheet than the Mustang does, but in function I think the Mustang stands up to the competition better. To be exact I think the Mustang crew did a very good job of hitting the target within the budget given them and did so by strategically planning where cost cutting would do the least damage.....unfortunate as some of that cost cutting may have been.

The Mustangs interior materials aren't the best, but they aren't terrible out of line with comparable cars. Egronomics and seating are actually pretty good compared to other cars in the Mustangs price range. The solid rear axle brings some shortcomings to the table, but it also brings some strengths and the cars handling needs no apologies even if it is a bit rough around the edges. Dynamics are always nicely linear and the car does what you want, when you want, all with limits more than high enough to entertain. The one, inexcusable area of the current Mustang for me is the GT models brakes.

The Vette is a performance standout, but many of the compromises made to create such a performance bargain give no indication of strategic though as to where cost cutting might best be made. Example. The interior is genuinely sub par compared to anything in the class, and the seats would be terrible even in a 25k car. The steering may have gotten better, but barring an earth shattering revival it is still going to be back of the pack fare. NVH is better, compared to older Vettes, but GM trails here too. The list goes on.

The Vette looks great right up until you actually own one. And that sums up GM's problem. The little things that make you like a car even more than when you first drove it a year into your ownership experience are the areas where the Vette comes up short.

IMO the Mustang stands as an example of how to plan and execute a car that is both profitable and desirable and which will remain so throughout its production cycle and throughout the ownership experience. And that is why the Mustang gives me hope for Ford. Now they just have to apply the logic they used on Mustang to everything else.

 

Speaking from experience as someone who heavily researched - and now owns - an '07 GT, I stand by my comments above. Yes, the Mustang is a well-executed car for the money (just like the Vette), but there are certain inexcusable omissions where it's clear the beancounters were mucking about in the engineering phase, i.e. substandard plastics adorning the interior; no passenger grab handles; no telescopic steering wheel (the tilt is minimal enough); no dead pedal (welcome to mucky carpeting under your left foot in winter); no light in the glove box (frankly, a very poorly designed glove box overall - with a latching mechanism that takes up too much room in the storage space, particularly given how flimsy it is), etc, etc.

Are they deal breakers? No, not as sales have demonstrated. Would they have made for a more refined car? Yes. None of these things would have added that much to the cost, but they would have improved overall presentation and perception.

Ford has a corporate culture of cheaping out on the details whenever it can get away with it. It has hurt them in the past, and will continue to do so if they persist with such an arcane strategy in a highly competitive 21st century marketplace, one where their chief competitor, GM, is making quantifiable gains in the refinement department.

 

But you are still leaving out the biggest problem with GM's product revival. Profitability on many, if not most, of these models is questionable at best. We know that GM is having profitability issues with some of their recent product and now we have the most recent of these, the Zeta based rwd models, continuing this trend. Anybody can build a car with better materials, superior fit and finish, etc.....but if you can't make money on those cars none of that makes a bit of difference.

Sadly, most of the the latest batch of GM profitability problems were a 'no brainer' to go badly well before they actually became problems. I mentioned on this site long ago that depending upon Australia to develop a global rwd platform would most likely end in disaster for Ford or GM due to the high possibility that costs would grow out of control. Low cost isn't what Australia does best by any means, so why would anybody expect them to pull that rabbit out of their hat now? A sea of delays, and likely cancellations, for several pending Zeta-based products (GM's lame excuse that CAFE requirements caused this not withstanding) and the reality that GM actually considered engineering a live axle into certain Zeta based products proved my fears correct some time ago.

Now we have Ford happily following suit with Huntsman as though they are too blind to see what happened to GM. Even worse we have Ford enthusiasts gleefully nodding their heads in approval as though the disaster that is Zeta never happened. The icing on the cake.......cost over-runs are likely to be even worse for Ford since they have no plans to spread Huntsman around in the same measure GM planned to employ Zeta. If you are wondering what this has to do with the Vette the relationship is simple. What looks great on paper often has problems once in the real world, and sometimes even before. And Ford, while they need to improve in many areas, Ford absolutely does not need to follow GM's lead as it relates to any vehicle or platform.

Put simply Mustang is a well executed vehicle that makes money, remains desirable in every trim level several years into production, and betters the brand as a whole. That is what Ford needs to expand upon.

 

We know? Where's your proof for ANY of those assertions? "Lies, dang lies, and statistics"...let's see some facts instead.

Well, Honda and Toyota seem to manage just fine. What makes Ford and GM "special"...or should I say, exempt?

Live axles considered for the Zeta platform? Again, proof for any of this?

Ford absolutely needs to be following GMs lead if it means more refined, better quality products coming to market in a timely fashion. Just how much time do you think these companies have to impress the public, anyway?

First you build quality products...then the public notices and begins buying...then you make back your investment and begin to make a profit. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Old business models simply don't apply under 11th hour pressure to regain public trust. Ridiculous salaries on Mahogany Row and money flushed away through UAW contractual waste are the real culprits here (anyone recall Mark Field's personal jet exursions to and from work?), not importing cars from overseas as part of a strategy to leverage your global holdings.

With what? Right now, Ford have minimal hits: Mustang, Fusion (Mercury equivalent)...possibly Edge. The rest of the lineup is lackluster at best. Ford needs an exciting and relevant product lineup right now, not two years from now.

As to Mustang, sure it's making money...now. But competition is heating up, and it's anyone's guess how long high performance coupes will stay relevant anyway with oil climbing towards $100 a barrel.

 

Oh c'mon. If you only want to hear the automotive news that we know to be irrefutable, gospel truth then I predict you are going to have an extremely boring time on these forums since you will virtually never get the same and you know it. Ford and GM virtually never admit to the truth, particularly when the truth reveals a mistake, and the the best we can hope for is very well validated inside info leaked by good sources.

And that is exactly what we have here. Australian sources on par with Blue II and Fourcam mentioned that a live axle was a serious consideration for some Zeta platforms, Camaro in particular, some time ago and that this was one of the reasons for the endless delays regarding Zeta. And even with their qoutes posted here there would be nothing irrefutable about it. Given the high volume Zeta was originally planned for economies of scale should obviously make engineering an entirely new SRA design along with the existing IRS a needless exercise.

Put simply...somebody was looking for cost cutting measures anywhere they could find them, and by this point the evidence everybody can see points to nothing but. On a volume platform this shows desperation pure and simple. But why should this be a surprise since GM's own books tell us that their profitability isn't getting significantly better despite newer and better product? Factor in Zeta delays or cancellations on top of that, and there has thus far been no legit explanation given for the same outside of money, and the reality of the situation becomes pretty clear.


The skill here is in using those materials and still keeping the car profitable...pure and simple. Obviously it isn't easy or everybody would be doing it.

Here we go again. frankly this is sounding a good deal more like you just don't want to believe it. This is old news by now, and if I have the time I'll try and dig up some qoutes for you from our Australian friends. But to be honest I'm not going to kill myself to get it.

I relay stuff as I hear it....feel free to believe it or not.

Just how much more time do you think these companies have to build cars that don't make a profit?

I don't disagree with the salary issues, etc. But the notion that GM can lose money building cars people might want is just fantasy. And frankly the G8 doesn't have a prayer in hades of being as popular as the 300 was....remember I said this....and the 300 makes money! GM has to build cars that capture the imagination and make profits, as does Ford, and if neither of them can manage this then the business cycle will do its work.

And that would be my point...Ford needs great product ASAP. The difference is that I think they still have ample time if such a revival started today or even six months from now. My fear is that such a revival wont ever start.

As for the gasoline issue. I think this is blown well out of proportion and is frankly something which GM and Ford could both take advantage of if they had the imagination to do so..and they could do this without the need to build a sea of boring, small cars nobody wants

 

Here you go. A quick Google search revealed about a million references to the same. Not quite the horses mouth, but it shows that GM performance rags were listening to the same folks that I heard. The difference is I was fortunate enough to be on the right forum at the right time when one of the first guy quietly leaked that this was a consideration and cost was an issue.

But I still don't know why is such a surprise since we know that...

1: GM is having issues getting the Camaro to market for Mustang money.

2: GM is currently having profitability issues all around.

3: Zeta programs have been delayed or cancelled and it has nothing to do with the new CAFE standards Maximum Bob cited.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=1419469

 

So this is all wishful speculation on your part, then. We have no real source info for this.

On the other hand, everything I have read about Zeta tells me that it is a global platform designed and engineered to use IRS. SRA was never considered for the new Camaro, and in point of fact, it would end up costing more engineering and development time to shoehorn an effective SRA into a platform designed for IRS, than it would be worth.

Bob Lutz also clearly stated from day one - and never wavered from this - that the Camaro would get IRS, and that it would be one of its chief core competitive strengths over the Mustang. GM has also stated publicly that Camaro costs may well be amortized by selling the car in both Europe and Australia - in addition to North America - as part of the new globalization strategy. Though no final decision has been made on this.

Ummm...pretty much everybody HAS been doing it, save the domestics and a few niche or fringe manufacturers.

Yep, you're right, here we go again. Hyperbole makes a poor substitute for proof.

Hot tip >> they've spent the last couple of decades building many cars that didn't make a profit, because the cars were undesirable, of poor quality, unrefined, etc. If you're GONNA waste or lose a bit of money - assuming that's the case with GM's forthcoming vehicles, and we have no evidence for that anyway - then best to do it in the service of improving your product so that the public will take notice.

Again, this is unsubstantiated opinion. The fact is that while Ford futzes about with future product development, GM is bringing many of those products to market RIGHT NOW.

Ample time?!?! GM is introducing those products now! Comparatively, Ford has nothing. Riddle me this: While Cadillac introduces its brand new CTS to critical and public acclaim (one of the hottest selling new vehicles in ANY category this month, in fact), where is Lincoln's equivalent?

I'll tell you. It's sitting in a drawing portfolio somewhere in the design center while the beancounters decide whether or not they really need to build it.

And THAT'S the difference between Ford and GM right there.

If, if, if. If wishes were horses, beggars would fly. And if Ford and GM hadn't dropped the ball 30 years ago, they wouldn't be in difficulties today. But we can play the "if" game all day long.

The fact is that oil is at $90 a barrel, and could easily hit $100 a barrel. "If" that happens, there won't be any more "ifs". The whole auto industry will take a massive hit. And that's a quote from Bob Lutz himself.

Imagination? The domestics are still trying to get the basics right. At least GM had the intestinal fortitude to announce the Volt. Hopefully Ford will show us something similar - but sooner would be better than later.

Some of that information is old news and not especially pertinent to what we were discussing. As to GM profitability, it's ahead of Ford right now. So, again, not sure what the point is here.

 

Not quite. I have at no point felt the need to go digging for the original qoute here and even if I had it in front of me I wouldn't post it. I know the source I got it from is in the know in all things Australian and that is good enough for me. To my knowledge he discussed this once publically and it is his perogative wether or not to do it again. I am not going to make that decision for him because I know that he potentially has something to lose. As I stated above you are at liberty to believe it or not...it really doesn't matter to me. What portions of my argument aren't currently being proven accurate will be in time.

There is always a case for economies of scale but you cannot possibly know wether Camaro would be cheaper to produce with or without a SRA unless you have access to GM's numbers on the issue. And to be blunt even then you wouldn't know since their predictions are nothing more than a really good (they hope) guess.

You are talking about the same Bob Lutz who gave the ridiculous excuse of new CAFE requirements for Zeta delays and cancellations, aren;t you? I cannot seriously believe you bought that so why one earth would you consider anything else he says to be irrefutable?


Several manufacturers have had monetary isues of late. VW, Subaru, and Peugeot too IIRC come to mind immediately. And these aren't the only ones.

Like I said you are free to believe it or not.

So now building hot cars that lose money is better than building mediocre cars that lose money. I suppose I can see your reasoning from the perspective of an outsider but from a business perspective.....hot tip here...both lead to bankruptcy.


So the CTS and a G8 which may be no more successful than the GTO now count as many? Stretching it a bit aren't we?

And right now if is still almost all Ford or GM has.

You really need to get over this Bob thing.

And here is the rub. I am no more pleased with Fords direction than that of GM at the moment. In fact I am convinced both will end in utter disaster, ironically for largely the same reasons despite vastly different approaches. And yet you keep trying to turn this into a Ford versus Chevy debate? Can't you see past that? If it makes you feel better for me to say that GM's path to bankruptcy involves more hot product than does that of Ford I'll concede it does, but that seems a hollow victory.

I would hope that Ford has the wisdom to understand that vehicles like the Volt are ultimately pointless and the convinction to admit it.

So old is now the same as irrelevent? I disagree.

 

Whatever.

I also don't need to jump off a building to know I can't fly.

Some things are self-evident.

Actually, I agree with you about the asinine remark Lutz made re CAFE standards. But that in no way belies what he said re the new Camaro, nor does it detract from the importance or superiority of the Zeta platform. We all say silly or regrettable things sometimes, as you're proving with some of these remarks you're posting.

Well, VWs are crap...that's common knowledge. As to Subaru and Peugeot, the latter is what I would consider a fringe manufacturer, and I had not heard about any problems with former, though admittedly, I don't follow Subaru very closely.

Not, I expect.

You're clearly not grasping what I'm saying here. Never mind.


You're living in a fantasy world of "what ifs" because, apparently - judging from all your anti-GM rhetoric - you hate General Motors.

Stretching it, huh? Stretch this. Or this.

What's your armchair strategy for GM? Build more crap? Select GM products are finally showing signs of world class quality, and all you can do is b*tch and moan about it and turn it into some half-a$$ed academic debate.

You seem to be under the impression that no matter what either of them do, they're both f*cked; as if somehow improving the quality of one's product (as the Japanese have proven works, year after year) will make NO difference to the bottom line for American carmakers. For how much longer are North American carmakers and their staunch conservative advocates going to labor under this misconception?

See the sales figures for the new CTS above once again if you are still deluded enough to believe mediocre quality and cut rate prices is the way of the future for any carmaker in this day and age.

And by the way, the G8 will blow the doors off the Chrysler 300, both functionally and dynamically. While a great "American" design, sales of the 300 are tapering dramatically, and the quality and refinement was never better than "so-so".

What's pointless is continuing to depend upon petroleum in a world where peak oil has already been reached, or will be reached by 2013. As they say: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. I take my hat off to GM for trying to lead by innovation, regardless of how ultimately practical the Volt ends up being.

And if it's monetary waste resulting from unprofitable cars you're worried about, maybe someone should tell Ford to stop wasting money on designing and showing concept cars that they have no intention of ever building. That money could go into real innovation and refinement, not dreams that will never be realized.

As I said, I would rather own stock in GM than Ford right now, assuming I HAD to own stock in either of them.

 

Calm down guys I didn't intend this to be a huge debate more just to let you know about the other camp.

A few more snippets before I just add a few views of my own.

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/SEMA/index.jsp

GM is definately ramping up the HP levels of their new line of engines and Direct injection and OHC are planned for the next line of GM V8's. So that should be good overall for all enthusiast as it only raises the bar which I'm sure Ford will not just lay down on and go ahead and usher in these BOSS and Hurricanes.

The Zeta chassis is already on its way with the plant being built/refit in Canada to produce GMX 511, 521 and 551 which are the Camaro, Vert Camaro and Impala. Haven't found about the G8 or CTS yet, but that is 5 RWD V8 cars with shared Zeta technology. You'd have to read some of the "leaked" letters between the UAW and GM to see what GM has planned as with the Zeta because they haven't publically released any real info reguarding the Zeta but have been assuring the UAW that the closures are just making way for the production of these future vehicles.

The whole "CAFE" arguement was just talk as the Impala is still on the line as well as the Camaro and G8 And If I'm not mistaken the CTS as well. GM hasn't had a problem meeting CAFE with V8 RWD platforms. Hell My Camaro got 30 mpg hwy and most GM V8 Cars are getting well into the high 20's easily. It was just hype which would affect their SUV lineup more than anything which is their largest profit group.

And according to GM brass the solid axle is not going to be offered in the Zeta. There was a rumor floating around that they "might" offer it as an option but as of yet it has not panned out.

Now as far as vette sales under MSRP supposedly indicating demand for the cars are you sure that demand is the main reason or could it possibly linked to the fact that the housing market has crashed and we are going through another mini-recession? Auto sales are generally the first indicator of a slump in economy followed closely with the housing market of which both are down world wide. Econo cars are up SUV and niche cars are down as a whole.

On a profitibility aspect of GM has posted profits 3 quarters straight and even edged out Toyota in cars sold this year again. http://channels.isp.netscape.com/pf/...20071021TOK103

I don't know of a direct competitor in the states from the Ford camp but this http://media.gm.com/us/gm/en/news/ev...20Overview.htm is another arrival in 08.

Lastly of course theres this http://www.motorauthority.com/news/s...-could-follow/. GM has actually done well with the Austrailian engineered parts and it is a large part of the foreign car market and selling well against its competition especially the Middle eastern market.

Like I said this wasn't a comparison thread more a this is whats comming so maybe you can find more insight or speculate a little more on what Ford may do to contend with these. I actually hope to see Ford follow suit and eventually put Toyota back in 3rd.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywood_North GT

I also don't need to jump off a building to know I can't fly.
Some things are self-evident.

Indeed, some things should be, but this isn’t one of them.

Quote:

Actually, I agree with you about the asinine remark Lutz made re CAFE standards. But that in no way belies what he said re the new Camaro, nor does it detract from the importance or superiority of the Zeta platform. We all say silly or regrettable things sometimes, as you're proving with some of these remarks you're posting.

Ironically, or not I suppose, I was thinking the exact same thing about your posts. But that aside Zeta programs have been delayed/cancelled in masse for something…so if it isn’t CAFÉ standards, and it obviously isn’t, the list of plausible reasons gets very small. Hmmmm, poor profit projections/potential comes to mind…..nah.

Quote:

Not, I expect.

As expected.

Quote:

You're clearly not grasping what I'm saying here. Never mind.

I fully understand your point. I’m simply saying that ultimately it makes no difference unless other issues are addressed as well. IMO if both continue on their current courses, and by this I am referring to their respective execution as a whole, each is headed for mediocrity at best. And attempting to predict who will do a better job of being a mediocre car company just doesn’t interest me.

Quote:

You're living in a fantasy world of "what ifs" because, apparently - judging from all your anti-GM rhetoric - you hate General Motors.

Or, could it be that I really am just not as impressed by some of this as many folks are? The new CTS is very good, it may even be the best American car in twenty years if not more, but that goodness has yet to even show signs of seriously creeping into the rest of the Caddy line, an issue which troubles me. I also find several other decisions they have made problematic, and their apparent profitability issues troubling. (yes, yes, I know) For the record I am just as troubled by many of the plans Mulally and crew are making for Ford, possibly even moreso, but as I stated earlier there is little reason to point these out since more than enough people on here regularly bash Fords product successful or otherwise.

Quote:

Stretching it, huh? Stretch this. Or this.

And my problem with this is that CTS is one car. Outside of the Escalade the rest of the Caddy lineup is hurting to say the least. Will the whole of Cadillac follow suit? Maybe. But then the original CTS gave many high hopes for the STS and GM bungled that one pretty badly. Caddy is still a wait and see scenario. The CTS is a great example of what can happen when an American car company does it ‘right’. But CTS is still a one car show.

Quote:

What's your armchair strategy for GM? Build more crap? Select GM products are finally showing signs of world class quality, and all you can do is b*tch and moan about it and turn it into some half-a$$ed academic debate.

The G8 doesn’t impress me because the real answer is to fix North American operations and the Aussie solution just brings to many hurdles to the situation. And that would be the beginning of my plan for GM, fix North American operations. If the CEO and Board cannot accomplish that one task why should I expect that they can effectively run the company in any capacity?

Quote:

You seem to be under the impression that no matter what either of them do, they're both f*cked; as if somehow improving the quality of one's product (as the Japanese have proven works, year after year) will make NO difference to the bottom line for American carmakers. For how much longer are North American carmakers and their staunch conservative advocates going to labor under this misconception?

See the sales figures for the new CTS above once again if you are still deluded enough to believe mediocre quality and cut rate prices is the way of the future for any carmaker in this day and age.

And by the way, the G8 will blow the doors off the Chrysler 300, both functionally and dynamically. While a great "American" design, sales of the 300 are tapering dramatically, and the quality and refinement was never better than "so-so".

Quite the contrary. As arrogant as it sounds (and I fully understand just how arrogant this is going to sound) setting both Ford and GM on the right path at this stage is likely still squarely in the realm of ridiculously easy. (this is somewhat difficult to say since we really don’t know what they still have to work with fiscally speaking) The tough part is actually working the plan once you have it. IMO the fact that neither can get their collective *&^% together long enough to even set out a plan that isn’t ridiculously convoluted or misguided clearly shows how they got here in the first place.

As for me believing that quality doesn’t matter…I have no idea where you got hold of that notion. However, quality isn’t enough by itself. I am convinced that Ford and GM are going to have to build quality product with great appeal, and which is thoroughly representative of a modern age rendition of great American automobiles, to have a serious chance of returning to prominence. In every respect the greatest potential for design and production lies here in North America. Again, if neither GM or Ford can get their act together within their own core looking to Europe or Australia to help bail them out seems like a weak attempt to stave off the inevitable.

As for the G8 being a better car than the 300 dynamically. I would hope so since GM has had several years to figure out how to accomplish the same. That said it will never illicit the kind of demand or generate the interest that the 300 did, or the new CTS has for that matter, because the visceral appeal of cars like the 300, CTS, and Mustang just isn’t there. The GTO proved in spades, and not surprisingly, that cars have to be more than just dynamically and functionally good to succeed. We’ll have to wait and see on this issue, but do remember that I said G8 will do moderately well at best. (possible initial sales rush lasting a few months or so aside of course)

Quote:

What's pointless is continuing to depend upon petroleum in a world where peak oil has already been reached, or will be reached by 2013. As they say: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. I take my hat off to GM for trying to lead by innovation, regardless of how ultimately practical the Volt ends up being.

I don’t disagree with the goal, just the notion that cars like the Volt are the best way to achieve it. BMW’s strategy is much more realistic IMO, if a bit too conservative.

Quote:

And if it's monetary waste resulting from unprofitable cars you're worried about, maybe someone should tell Ford to stop wasting money on designing and showing concept cars that they have no intention of ever building. That money could go into real innovation and refinement, not dreams that will never be realized.

I agree completely. But then I would think that was self evident.

Quote:

As I said, I would rather own stock in GM than Ford right now, assuming I HAD to own stock in either of them.

For me, from the perspective of future viability given current leadership…pure toss up.

 

not to be the little retarded un-educated teenager but trying to convince the other person to think like you or change their opinion probably isnt gonna work. i learned that a while back.

 

 

yeah...I suck at arguing.

 

DO NOT!

 

Wow... yall had some really good points, but honestly, I couldn't finish the entire thread.

I do think its very weird that there is very little visual difference between base, Z06 and ZR1. Oh well... good for me!

What's with the supercharging though? What do American car companies have against turbos?

 

Its more economical to supercharge than turbo in a V8 application. That's alot of piping and potential leeks and warranty work. Theres plenty of turbo 4's out there but the 8's are all supercharged save for a few luxo Europeans but for the most part most supercharge them. There is not too much to differenciate the ZR1 from from a base, but then again if it was too different then it would be another car. Its just an option for the vette. Just look for the big buldge in the hood and huge rear tires that should five you a clue when you see them on the road.

 

I can see that being true of aftermarket turbos where they are mostly developed by very small companies basically kludging together a system for a car that wasn't designed to be turbo'ed in the first place.

But a manufacturer, who can include a turbo into the basic design of the car, should be able to do it reliabably and cheap, imo.

I think some would argue that when paying for an option that doubles the cost of the car, it should be regarded as a completely different car.

GT500 is very visually distinct from a normal GT... and for good reason, imo.