HTT Calls IRS Fans 'Snobs'
#141
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 8:48 AM
This is pointless trying to explain this to you. You don't understand the automotive market.
This is pointless trying to explain this to you. You don't understand the automotive market.
That's weird...I was just thinking the same thing about you!
#142
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 18, 2005, 9:46 AM
First you compare the Mustang to the 350Z because people cross-shop them and now it's "who cares about the 350Z specifically, let's look at overall sales"? Is it possible for you keep a consistent argument? I don't disagree that Nissan is doing well with it's overall lineup. Ford neglected their car line for too long and are just now starting to address it. It wasn't that long ago that Nissan was a bottom feeder among Japanese automakers and they turned it around. Ford is trying to do the same thing but I guess that's not "good enough" for you.
First you compare the Mustang to the 350Z because people cross-shop them and now it's "who cares about the 350Z specifically, let's look at overall sales"? Is it possible for you keep a consistent argument? I don't disagree that Nissan is doing well with it's overall lineup. Ford neglected their car line for too long and are just now starting to address it. It wasn't that long ago that Nissan was a bottom feeder among Japanese automakers and they turned it around. Ford is trying to do the same thing but I guess that's not "good enough" for you.
Read this:
http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/35231/this_mo...ir_decline.html
#143
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 7:51 AM
My arguement has been consistent, rather I am getting off on tangents.
Read this:
http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/35231/this_mo...ir_decline.html
My arguement has been consistent, rather I am getting off on tangents.
Read this:
http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/35231/this_mo...ir_decline.html
So, back on topic for a second. If the Mustang is competitive, to say the least, racing with this SRA set-up and beating IRS cars, why do you want an IRS?
The line between want and need gets fuzzier all the time.Tell me why we NEED(not want) an IRS. Mustangs have always been about bang for the buck.I don't want to lose sight of that. If you want something complicated ,but a Ferrari and get your own personal mechanic.
#144
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 8:51 AM
My arguement has been consistent, rather I am getting off on tangents.
Read this:
http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/35231/this_mo...ir_decline.html
My arguement has been consistent, rather I am getting off on tangents.
Read this:
http://www.yeald.com/Yeald/a/35231/this_mo...ir_decline.html
#145
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 8:49 AM
Nope, just like you probably don't have internal documentation that options add to the Mustangs base price.
Nope, just like you probably don't have internal documentation that options add to the Mustangs base price.
#146
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 18, 2005, 10:04 AM
I'm not denying Ford and GM haven't dug themselves a hole (and a deep hole at that). I'm just not buying the argument that the SRA is symptom of a bigger problem. I believe it's the direct result of Ford marketing to the core Mustang demographic (and quite successfully I might add). In other product segments they're offering things like AWD and CVTs where the competitors don't offer them. They still haven't made a dent in import sales. What does that tell you? It tells me these techno gizmos aren't necessarily the answer as you contend. The issue is perception of quality. Ford has taken a big hit in that area and it's very tough to overcome.
I'm not denying Ford and GM haven't dug themselves a hole (and a deep hole at that). I'm just not buying the argument that the SRA is symptom of a bigger problem. I believe it's the direct result of Ford marketing to the core Mustang demographic (and quite successfully I might add). In other product segments they're offering things like AWD and CVTs where the competitors don't offer them. They still haven't made a dent in import sales. What does that tell you? It tells me these techno gizmos aren't necessarily the answer as you contend. The issue is perception of quality. Ford has taken a big hit in that area and it's very tough to overcome.
The SRA, might not be a problem, but the mentality behind it is. Technical gizmos like AWD do sell, but in the 500's case the car is underpowered, bland, and handles very poorly for a sedan(read last weeks AW). Instead of matching the competition, Ford chose to push out a mediocre product. Let me use engines as an example.... How long has Nissan been offering a 260 hp V6? Since 2002. Honda introduced a 240 hp V6 in 2003. Even Hyundai has a 265 hp engine coming out. Ford??? Last I heard 2007
Look at what Hyundai was able to produce. It looks like a great car for the money.
http://www.hyundaiazera.com/Home.aspx
#147
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 9:16 AM
Perception of quality is very easy to change. I will point you to Hyundai as a perfect example.
The SRA, might not be a problem, but the mentality behind it is. Technical gizmos like AWD do sell, but in the 500's case the car is underpowered, bland, and handles very poorly for a sedan(read last weeks AW). Instead of matching the competition, Ford chose to push out a mediocre product. Let me use engines as an example.... How long has Nissan been offering a 260 hp V6? Since 2002. Honda introduced a 240 hp V6 in 2003. Even Hyundai has a 265 hp engine coming out. Ford??? Last I heard 2007
Look at what Hyundai was able to produce. It looks like a great car for the money.
http://www.hyundaiazera.com/Home.aspx
Perception of quality is very easy to change. I will point you to Hyundai as a perfect example.
The SRA, might not be a problem, but the mentality behind it is. Technical gizmos like AWD do sell, but in the 500's case the car is underpowered, bland, and handles very poorly for a sedan(read last weeks AW). Instead of matching the competition, Ford chose to push out a mediocre product. Let me use engines as an example.... How long has Nissan been offering a 260 hp V6? Since 2002. Honda introduced a 240 hp V6 in 2003. Even Hyundai has a 265 hp engine coming out. Ford??? Last I heard 2007
Look at what Hyundai was able to produce. It looks like a great car for the money.
http://www.hyundaiazera.com/Home.aspx
According to this article, the 500 tied with the Nissan Maxima for best large cars. It sounds like they're doing something right even it is underpowered.
#148
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 18, 2005, 9:31 AM
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0...auto-182558.htm
According to this article, the 500 tied with the Nissan Maxima for best large cars. It sounds like they're doing something right even it is underpowered.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0...auto-182558.htm
According to this article, the 500 tied with the Nissan Maxima for best large cars. It sounds like they're doing something right even it is underpowered.
#149
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 11:16 AM
Perception of quality is very easy to change. I will point you to Hyundai as a perfect example.
The SRA, might not be a problem, but the mentality behind it is. Technical gizmos like AWD do sell, but in the 500's case the car is underpowered, bland, and handles very poorly for a sedan(read last weeks AW). Instead of matching the competition, Ford chose to push out a mediocre product. Let me use engines as an example.... How long has Nissan been offering a 260 hp V6? Since 2002. Honda introduced a 240 hp V6 in 2003. Even Hyundai has a 265 hp engine coming out. Ford??? Last I heard 2007
Look at what Hyundai was able to produce. It looks like a great car for the money.
http://www.hyundaiazera.com/Home.aspx
Perception of quality is very easy to change. I will point you to Hyundai as a perfect example.
The SRA, might not be a problem, but the mentality behind it is. Technical gizmos like AWD do sell, but in the 500's case the car is underpowered, bland, and handles very poorly for a sedan(read last weeks AW). Instead of matching the competition, Ford chose to push out a mediocre product. Let me use engines as an example.... How long has Nissan been offering a 260 hp V6? Since 2002. Honda introduced a 240 hp V6 in 2003. Even Hyundai has a 265 hp engine coming out. Ford??? Last I heard 2007
Look at what Hyundai was able to produce. It looks like a great car for the money.
http://www.hyundaiazera.com/Home.aspx
The Chicago Twins have been increasingly selling higher each month.
I agree the 3.5 would have been a much better engine and Ford should of had it ready for launch, but Mr. Nasser was busy buying up other car companies, and other ventures that he didn't focus on future Fords. What was Bill to do? Wait until the 3.5 was available for the Five Hundred? And sit on the Taurus?
In my opinion Ford did what it had to do given the options on the table. The Mustang, and GT created good car buzz (darn those TSB's on the GT), and Five Hundred has at least put some life back into a depleted car lineup, and if the Fusion can come off as a hit, the styling direction of the Five Hundred in 2007 with the 3.5 should continue the momentum for Ford. Long term . . it just might work. Heck look at Mighty Toyota and the ~780,000 recall, and Prius "quitting" issues they are having.
#150
Originally posted by holderca1@May 18, 2005, 9:34 AM
You know, I have been wondering why the G6 sales haven't been better, it won it's category. It also has the most powerful base engine in it's class, actually every other car in it's class starts with a 4-cylinder I believe.
You know, I have been wondering why the G6 sales haven't been better, it won it's category. It also has the most powerful base engine in it's class, actually every other car in it's class starts with a 4-cylinder I believe.
#151
Originally posted by Evil_Capri@May 18, 2005, 9:37 AM
I wouldn't call the Five Hundred mediocre. It does offer 5-star safety on a Volvo Chassis, AWD, 6-speed or CVT Transmission (not sure for how much longer on the CVT). Our Limited stickered for ~28K, which is a good buy. They aren't selling them to fleets in HUGE numbers ~10-14% compared to ~24-25 for the 300. I'm not sure on the Camry's fleet numbers but they are higher than Fords. Heck one of the main reasons Ford bought Hertz was to use it as a source to dump their vehicle they produced as opposed to paying workers, suppliers for not producing anything.
The Chicago Twins have been increasingly selling higher each month.
I agree the 3.5 would have been a much better engine and Ford should of had it ready for launch, but Mr. Nasser was busy buying up other car companies, and other ventures that he didn't focus on future Fords. What was Bill to do? Wait until the 3.5 was available for the Five Hundred? And sit on the Taurus?
In my opinion Ford did what it had to do given the options on the table. The Mustang, and GT created good car buzz (darn those TSB's on the GT), and Five Hundred has at least put some life back into a depleted car lineup, and if the Fusion can come off as a hit, the styling direction of the Five Hundred in 2007 with the 3.5 should continue the momentum for Ford. Long term . . it just might work. Heck look at Mighty Toyota and the ~780,000 recall, and Prius "quitting" issues they are having.
I wouldn't call the Five Hundred mediocre. It does offer 5-star safety on a Volvo Chassis, AWD, 6-speed or CVT Transmission (not sure for how much longer on the CVT). Our Limited stickered for ~28K, which is a good buy. They aren't selling them to fleets in HUGE numbers ~10-14% compared to ~24-25 for the 300. I'm not sure on the Camry's fleet numbers but they are higher than Fords. Heck one of the main reasons Ford bought Hertz was to use it as a source to dump their vehicle they produced as opposed to paying workers, suppliers for not producing anything.
The Chicago Twins have been increasingly selling higher each month.
I agree the 3.5 would have been a much better engine and Ford should of had it ready for launch, but Mr. Nasser was busy buying up other car companies, and other ventures that he didn't focus on future Fords. What was Bill to do? Wait until the 3.5 was available for the Five Hundred? And sit on the Taurus?
In my opinion Ford did what it had to do given the options on the table. The Mustang, and GT created good car buzz (darn those TSB's on the GT), and Five Hundred has at least put some life back into a depleted car lineup, and if the Fusion can come off as a hit, the styling direction of the Five Hundred in 2007 with the 3.5 should continue the momentum for Ford. Long term . . it just might work. Heck look at Mighty Toyota and the ~780,000 recall, and Prius "quitting" issues they are having.
#152
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 18, 2005, 10:38 AM
Because, like Ford, GM is facing that perception problem that Max2000jp discounts. They can put competitive vehicles out yet they don't sell without heavy incentives or fleet sales.
Because, like Ford, GM is facing that perception problem that Max2000jp discounts. They can put competitive vehicles out yet they don't sell without heavy incentives or fleet sales.
#153
Originally posted by Robert@May 16, 2005, 4:57 PM
If the SRA vs. IRS poll on this website is any indication, it's clear that Ford is siding with the drag racing crowd because that appears to be what THEY want, and Ford considers that group to be their core demographic to this day. So given that, and the obvious cost savings incurred by utilizing the buggy axle, I guess it was a pretty simple decision for the bean counters on Mahogany Row.
Trouble is, as a litmus test of corporate culture, it tells me that Ford's North American division is either unwilling or unable to compete with global products.
If the SRA vs. IRS poll on this website is any indication, it's clear that Ford is siding with the drag racing crowd because that appears to be what THEY want, and Ford considers that group to be their core demographic to this day. So given that, and the obvious cost savings incurred by utilizing the buggy axle, I guess it was a pretty simple decision for the bean counters on Mahogany Row.
Trouble is, as a litmus test of corporate culture, it tells me that Ford's North American division is either unwilling or unable to compete with global products.
#154
Originally posted by Evil_Capri@May 18, 2005, 10:37 AM
I wouldn't call the Five Hundred mediocre. It does offer 5-star safety on a Volvo Chassis, AWD, 6-speed or CVT Transmission (not sure for how much longer on the CVT). Our Limited stickered for ~28K, which is a good buy. They aren't selling them to fleets in HUGE numbers ~10-14% compared to ~24-25 for the 300. I'm not sure on the Camry's fleet numbers but they are higher than Fords. Heck one of the main reasons Ford bought Hertz was to use it as a source to dump their vehicle they produced as opposed to paying workers, suppliers for not producing anything.
The Chicago Twins have been increasingly selling higher each month.
I agree the 3.5 would have been a much better engine and Ford should of had it ready for launch, but Mr. Nasser was busy buying up other car companies, and other ventures that he didn't focus on future Fords. What was Bill to do? Wait until the 3.5 was available for the Five Hundred? And sit on the Taurus?
In my opinion Ford did what it had to do given the options on the table. The Mustang, and GT created good car buzz (darn those TSB's on the GT), and Five Hundred has at least put some life back into a depleted car lineup, and if the Fusion can come off as a hit, the styling direction of the Five Hundred in 2007 with the 3.5 should continue the momentum for Ford. Long term . . it just might work. Heck look at Mighty Toyota and the ~780,000 recall, and Prius "quitting" issues they are having.
I wouldn't call the Five Hundred mediocre. It does offer 5-star safety on a Volvo Chassis, AWD, 6-speed or CVT Transmission (not sure for how much longer on the CVT). Our Limited stickered for ~28K, which is a good buy. They aren't selling them to fleets in HUGE numbers ~10-14% compared to ~24-25 for the 300. I'm not sure on the Camry's fleet numbers but they are higher than Fords. Heck one of the main reasons Ford bought Hertz was to use it as a source to dump their vehicle they produced as opposed to paying workers, suppliers for not producing anything.
The Chicago Twins have been increasingly selling higher each month.
I agree the 3.5 would have been a much better engine and Ford should of had it ready for launch, but Mr. Nasser was busy buying up other car companies, and other ventures that he didn't focus on future Fords. What was Bill to do? Wait until the 3.5 was available for the Five Hundred? And sit on the Taurus?
In my opinion Ford did what it had to do given the options on the table. The Mustang, and GT created good car buzz (darn those TSB's on the GT), and Five Hundred has at least put some life back into a depleted car lineup, and if the Fusion can come off as a hit, the styling direction of the Five Hundred in 2007 with the 3.5 should continue the momentum for Ford. Long term . . it just might work. Heck look at Mighty Toyota and the ~780,000 recall, and Prius "quitting" issues they are having.
The problem I have is that Ford is playing catch up(and they are way behind). When the 3.5L VQ came out, Ford should have started development on a similar enigne. When the 500 was given the green light, development should have been pushed. I mean how long does it take to design an engine? Definetly not as long as Ford has taken.
#155
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 9:53 AM
The 500 is definetly a step in the right direction. In fact, if they did a few simple things they could definetly have a winner on their hands. Ford needs to upgrade the suspension and put stickier A/S tires on the car. Next, they need a 260+ V6 in it. Lastly, transplant a Fusion-like front facia on it. The interior is quite nice.
The problem I have is that Ford is playing catch up(and they are way behind). When the 3.5L VQ came out, Ford should have started development on a similar enigne. When the 500 was given the green light, development should have been pushed. I mean how long does it take to design an engine? Definetly not as long as Ford has taken.
The 500 is definetly a step in the right direction. In fact, if they did a few simple things they could definetly have a winner on their hands. Ford needs to upgrade the suspension and put stickier A/S tires on the car. Next, they need a 260+ V6 in it. Lastly, transplant a Fusion-like front facia on it. The interior is quite nice.
The problem I have is that Ford is playing catch up(and they are way behind). When the 3.5L VQ came out, Ford should have started development on a similar enigne. When the 500 was given the green light, development should have been pushed. I mean how long does it take to design an engine? Definetly not as long as Ford has taken.
Wow...you've actually admitted that Ford is moving in the right direction. Hope springs eternal.
Most of the improvements regarding the 500 that you mentioned are in the works. Maybe they should have been done in the beginning but you have to remember that the old Ford would have just heavily discounted the 500 to move it instead of improving it. To me, that's a sign that the "good enough" attitude IS changing.
#156
Originally posted by TomServo92@May 18, 2005, 11:03 AM
Wow...you've actually admitted that Ford is moving in the right direction. Hope springs eternal.
Most of the improvements regarding the 500 that you mentioned are in the works. Maybe they should have been done in the beginning but you have to remember that the old Ford would have just heavily discounted the 500 to move it instead of improving it. To me, that's a sign that the "good enough" attitude IS changing.
Wow...you've actually admitted that Ford is moving in the right direction. Hope springs eternal.
Most of the improvements regarding the 500 that you mentioned are in the works. Maybe they should have been done in the beginning but you have to remember that the old Ford would have just heavily discounted the 500 to move it instead of improving it. To me, that's a sign that the "good enough" attitude IS changing.
#157
I was planning on doing a comparison of features and specs of cars, but it didn't really work out. The criteria for the comparison was that it had to be 2 door coupe starting under $30,000, be capable of sitting 4 passengers and have at least 250 hp. The Mustang GT was the only one that fit in the above criteria. Did I miss another car that met those?
#158
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 10:17 AM
The words I highlighted are the reason why I still feel Ford has that attitude. Sure it is changing, but it needs to be gone. In regards to the 500, if those changes happened at launch, I wouldn't be of the opinion I am.
The words I highlighted are the reason why I still feel Ford has that attitude. Sure it is changing, but it needs to be gone. In regards to the 500, if those changes happened at launch, I wouldn't be of the opinion I am.
#159
Originally posted by holderca1@May 18, 2005, 10:20 AM
Mazda and Nissan didn't reverse their misfortunes overnight.
Mazda and Nissan didn't reverse their misfortunes overnight.
Just for the record, I think an IRS in the Mustang would be great. But I don't have a problem with a well designed SRA and it wouldn't keep me from buying.
#160
Originally posted by max2000jp@May 18, 2005, 8:16 AM
Let me use engines as an example.... How long has Nissan been offering a 260 hp V6? Since 2002.
Let me use engines as an example.... How long has Nissan been offering a 260 hp V6? Since 2002.