Jaguar ain't doing so hot. Don't know about Aston nor Land Rover, but I wouldn't consider any of those brands a "Ford".

Honda's/Acura's do share a lot of components.

power windows are for lincolns, and color TV is WAY overrated!

I think you guys just like to argue, and when you are wrong, start making up excuses.

Other than the Mustang (and trucks of course), what other Ford's have SRA? None that I know of. Again, how many average buyers know the difference between IRS and SRA? Not many I'd say. Ford's "bread and butter" offerings have many of the same features (IRS, AWD, etc) as their competitors yet they suffer market decline. The Mustang's rear suspension is not the cause no matter how much you want to connect the two issues.

I think the Mustang's SRA caused the last solar eclipse.

Give it time. Eventually, Mr. Hai will be calling you guys the SRA SNOBS.


:jester:

Actually I don't care what the rear suspension is as long as it performs well.

I'm with you. SRA or IRS? Meh, just make it perform well and I'm happy.

Since the sky is falling and Ford is loosing some much business on the Mustang due to lack of IRS does that mean I'll get my order for an 05 filled?

Please say yes. I would rather spend less money on car with a lot of HP without IRS than keep driving my civic around.

Just finished reading all the replies.....

BTW, some of you guys shoudl start your own Auto company. You seem to know so much about how to make good cars and run successful Auto manufacturers.....

BTW, NO ONE on these boards has mentioned the primary reason that some American auto makers are having trouble making money. It actually has little to do with automobiles. The fact is their costs are way to high. Those primary costs being benifits to factory workers. To give an example GM has spent in their benifit HANDLING group than any other group in their company. That's not the cost of the benefits...that's the cost of MANAGING the benefits.

See, in Japan most of the factory workers gain their benifits from their government. So, the auto industries there don't have that cost directly to them. (Of course the japaneese pay much more in Taxes than we do, the money has to come from somewhere).

Finally, Japan has much more automation (i.e. robots) making their automobiles than American auto makers. Certain groups representing the factory workers have successfully convinced the Auto makers not to use robotic manufacturing techniques.

But I wouldn't worry....since American Airlines (I believe it was them) defaulted on their pension plan when they realized the U.S. government would cover the costs the dominos are about to fall. Many old U.S. industries are going to follow suit when they realize they can get out of the cost of paying pension plans by making the U.S. tax payer cover the bill.

And you wonder why SRA was used? With all these problems trying to find a way to affordably get IRS into their automobiles is the LEAST of the American Auto maker's problems.

Ahhh! Another expert first time prospective GT owner with an expert IRS opinion, a thin wallet, and Civic trained, no less. Now I understand why the GT guys like drifting so much. :nice:


:jester:

Man..I never claimed to be an IRS expert...I honestly don't care. Which is the point....most people like me don't. And I imagine all those people buying up the GT don't either.

You are using the actual IRS vs SRA suspension debate in the wrong context. Lets look at Ford's other recent sedans. The 500 is bland, way underpowered, and handles poorly. The Fusion has a lot of potential, but it's also underpowered. The SRA is a prime example of what Ford is doing wrong. It's not innovating, rather following way behind the competition. Ford and GM is out of touch with consumers, this is very apparent.

Someone brought up legacy costs, which the last time I saw a figure costs the consumer 1200 a car. Good point! Another factor that kills the US Auto Manufacturers are unions. Things would change for the better if the UAW wasn't around.

OMG, you hit Ford's problems right on, but for some reason you brought the SRA vs IRS thing back up. Reread the portion I made bold, that's what Ford needs to fix, the actual cars they are trying to move.

No it's just a prime example of the wrong attitude at Ford. An underpowered engine works fine, just like an SRA.

What he's saying is that the use of SRA is the SYMPTOM of the problem, not the origin. There are other symptoms as well, such as the aforementioned bland styling on the 500...cheap, hard, brittle plastic interiors on the new Mustang...the underpowered 6-cylinder engine in the 500...quality and reliability issues on a number of Ford products, etc, etc, etc.

SRA vs IRS is a particularly good symptom of Ford's problems, however, because it cuts to the heart of Ford's corporate attitude. The Mustang is considered to be cheap, crude, 'go-fast' power for lowest common denominator buyers. That's how Ford sees the Mustang, and with an attitude like that, it will never gain more mainstream market share of a kind that the imports enjoy. It's selling well now because it's trading largely on nostalgia, but how well will it sell two years from now?

I reiterate for the final time: NO OTHER MANUFACTURER OF NOTE USES SRA IN PASSENGER CARS ANYMORE!!!! Care to speculate as to why? Because it is INFERIOR TECHNOLOGY, best suited to trucks.

The bottom line is that Ford's cars cannot and do not compete with their import equivalents, and as a consequence, their sales are down while import sales are up. And UAW aside, part of the reason they don't compete is precisely because of technological and quality shortcomings, the kind of which are demonstrated aptly by the SRA issue.

I’m going “OFF-TOPIC” for a moment. I wish I could disagree with Robert, but I can’t, and as a Ford lover it hurts a little to see the company in the shape it is in currently. Now I will say that my Fiancee’s Five Hundred Limited is a fine car, I like it much more than the Taurus, and she and received numerous positive comments from people at the gas station, and out on the street. She is a previous owner of three Toyota’s and she crossed shopped Mazda 6, Camry, Volvo S40, Escape, and Mariner. I wanted her to get a Mazda 6 5-speed wagon, but I’m not paying for the car. Is it bland, yeah kinda, but it does have some pep for a 203hp car. The Camry and Accord don’t really define style any more than the Five Hundred., and I think the Fusion will be a hit . . .as long as the darn backseat is bigger than the old Contour.

HOWEVER . . . I can only imagine a Ford lineup that included the 427 concept, Fusion, and Euro Focus as their car lineup.

As long as the Ford has problems in their vehicle launches, and recalls, the public will stay away with whatever lineup they’re offering. And yes, I know other manufacturers have recalls, and the media isn’t as fast to make note of them, that should just make Ford that much more responsible in their vehicle launches.

OK . . BACK TO TOPIC . . .but good discussion nontheless.

Ahhh...but are they not currently designing bigger and more powerful V6 engines for these very cars? They've also decided to start doing mid-cycle model refreshes in much the same way that Toyota does them. How is that an example of the "wrong attitude"?

BTW, pick up the current issue of Car & Driver. There's an article about Ford's research into HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition). It's technology that will yield gas mileage that's 10% higher than a diesel yet retain all the power characteristics of a gasoline engine. It's still in the development stage but the article says we could see it in Ford cars in the next few years. I guess that's another example of "wrong attitude" as well.

Again, the SRA vs. IRS issue has nothing to do with the market share issue. If it did, the Mustang wouldn't be Ford's hottest selling model right now.

Did you not comprehend what I wrote? The SRA vs. IRS issue is symptomatic of the sorts of problems that are dwindling Ford's market share. I never said that Ford is losing market share strictly BECAUSE of the buggy axle.

HCCI sounds interesting. There are a few new technologies out there that show promise for improving the efficiency of gas powered engines. Unfortunately, they do little to mitigate the problem of greenhouse emissions. For that, we'll need a whole new type of fuel. BMW's new hydrogen powered ICE shows promise, but the problem there is that MAKING hydrogen fuel may prove to be as resource depleting and damaging as the current gasoline ICE.

Nobody wants to see Ford succeed more than I do. I got goosebumps of pride when the British auto magazines started heaping praise on the GT supercar. "Yeah," I thought, "we CAN still build world-beating cars!"

And I don't think people by Japanese cars because they WANT to buy from Japan...they do it because those vehicles are generally superior, offer better value for their money, and don't depreciate as quickly.

But domestic automakers have lost too much ground to succeed by playing a game of catch-up. They need to play to win now, or they will eventually lose, and then we'll all be driving around in imports. :(

I happen to think the 500 is a nice car. The only part that seems especially bland to me is the front end, which could have used more inspired styling. But the quality is a big step up for Ford...and a step in the right direction. But again, as good as it is, it's not quite there yet. Ford needs vehicles other than the GT and Mustang to get people excited. It's just as easy to style an attractive car as a boring one. And traditionally, we have been MUCH better in this part of the world at styling cars than the Japanese. Plus we have the heritage and nostalgia we can trade on - something they (mostly) lack, although they're starting to do that now, too, if you look at Toyota's new FJ Cruiser due next year.

There's no reason why we can't do this, but the will and the commitment need to be there. The kinds of business decisions that led to the approval of the Lincoln Mark LT pickup truck are NOT the way to do it. Nobody needs a luxury pickup truck when truck sales are down during the gas crunch. :rolleyes: