If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
There are absolutely so signs of progress. We may be in it for the long
haul but there has got to be a different approach than the one Bush is taking which is staying the course. "Steve" > wrote in message ... > Art wrote: > >> The saddest part is GW is determined to leave his mess to the next >> president to clean up. > > No, the saddest part is that so many head-in-the-sand types of all > political persuasions don't see that what is going on NEEDS to be done. > Its not fun, its not pretty, it IS a mess, but its the right thing to do > and its going to take a consistent effort by *several* presidents and > congresses over the next 20-plus years to make the world a reasonably safe > and free place. I think anyone with a brain realized that things were > going to go this way by no later than 5 PM on 9/11/01. We're in it for the > long haul. > > |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:57:12 GMT, "Art"
> wrote: >There are absolutely so signs of progress. We may be in it for the long >haul but there has got to be a different approach than the one Bush is >taking which is staying the course. <snip> WHAT "course?" All he's doing is doing things differently from Daddy Bush to show him who's boss. This clown will displace the likes of Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore and William McKinley in the "Worst President Ever" derby, mark my word. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
DeserTBoB wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:57:12 GMT, "Art" > > wrote: > > >>There are absolutely so signs of progress. We may be in it for the long >>haul but there has got to be a different approach than the one Bush is >>taking which is staying the course. <snip> > > > WHAT "course?" All he's doing is doing things differently from Daddy > Bush to show him who's boss. This clown will displace the likes of > Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore and William McKinley in the "Worst > President Ever" derby, mark my word. And you make liberals look bad - mark my words. I'd be embarrassed to have you on my side. But fortunately that's not the case. Liberals that hang out here are probably cringing with embarrassment. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
DeserTBoB wrote:
> ..."sheeple." Wow - a liberal that listens to Michael Savage. Strange combination. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
Bill Putney wrote: > DeserTBoB wrote: > > > ..."sheeple." > > Wow - a liberal that listens to Michael Savage. Strange combination. That's about the dumbest analogy I've read in a long time |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:19:12 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> wrote: >Regarding a "reliable" that is my point. At some stage maybe 20/25 years ago >the age of the reliable car began. <snip> I don't exactly buy that, either. Many US cars was very reliable as far back as the 1950s, although they needed considerably more routine maintenance (short term oil and lube intervals, for one) than modern lubrication technology needs today. One case comes to mind from that era, from Cadillac Motor Division. The Barr-Cole OHV engine which used all the basic engine design tenets of "Boss" Kettering laid out in the late 1930s, introduced in 1949 to the market, was the most efficient automotive power plant yet devised anywhere in the world at the time. With proper maintenance, it would easily also turn in a quarter million miles without having its heads off, despite its lightweight construction. Teamed with the indestructable HydraMatic transmission, this power plant simply did not have an equal anywhere in the world for years, and 1949-1955 Cadillacs became increasingly known for Rolls-Royce-like reliability and durability. Then, someone at GM decided that it was time to retire the old HydraMatic and come up with one with smoother shifting and a cheaper-to-produce and lighter aluminum case...as well as somewhat decreased efficiency. The result was the Dual Coupling HydraMatic of 1956, as big a disaster as any in those days. Many other engineering screw-ups happened in GM senior cars in '56, especially those of Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Cadillac divisions using the new transmission. While engines were increased in displacement and compression ratio to win their respective "horsepower races," radiator sizes remained the same. Also, an oil cooler, not needed on the pre-war HydraMatic, had to be added because of designed-in fluid coupling slippage. The higher compression, larger displacement and transmission heat load caused 1956 GM cars from these divisions to be well known "overheaters" on the road, along with vapor locking and other bad behavior. After some "screwing around" in 1957 and '58 to try to ameliorate these problems due to customer complaints (and defections to Chrysler and Ford), by 1959 these cars were once again more reliable, with the aforementioned problems cured with "work-arounds" such as bigger radiators, clutch drive fans, a valve body redesign and bypass type fuel pumps. Meanwhile, down in the low end of the market in 1957, Chevrolet Division unleashed one of the worst automatic transmissions ever devised (aside from the Packard Ultramatic), the Chevy "Turboglide," again another move to increase retail cost and decrease efficiency. Hydrokinetic torque multipliers are cheaper to produce than quality planetary gearsets, and that, plus lower fuel economy, was the goal. When the president of Buick Division was interviewed about the horrid showing of a Dynaflow-equipped (no gear reduction, but a huge 5 element torque converter similar to the Turboglide) Buick Super in the 1958 Mobil Economy Run (8 MPG average!), his reply, which was later denied by GM top brass, was, "Well...we have to keep our oil company friends happy!" So, reliable, efficient cars have been around, at least in the US, much longer than since 1980. There's considerable evidence that many of the reliability problems of cars after the post-war engineering bonanza were purposely done to increase service income, fuel consumption and "trade ins." In 1971, GM launched its "less car for more money" campaign, wherein GM car lines were cheapened throughout, but retail prices were boosted. Ex-GM executives, notably John De Lorean, have admitted to this for years, and any examination of 1971 full-sized GM cars tells the tale easily. Thus, the "reliable car" has been around for awhile...until management chicanery prevents it from being so on a routine basis. It should also be noted that De Lorean wasn't innocent of engineering screw-ups himself...he was responsible for THE worst automatic transmission ever made, the Ultramatic, while an engineer at Packard in 1947. His transmission helped tank Packard by late 1955. However, over in the UK, other forces were at work to prevent reliable automobiles...mostly engineering incompetence, and that's a whole different story! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
Art wrote: > What I can't understand about Ford and GM and even Chrysler, before giving > everything up and firing a huge number of employees, why not address the > quality issue by offering a free extended bumper to bumper service agreement > with each new car sold. . . The conventional wisdom is that Detroit has a quality "perception" problem. The reality is that they have a quality problem, period. Ford, GM and Chrysler have always looked to Madison Avenue to solve their sales problems instead of addressing the fundamental problem which is crummy cars that don't last very long and require a lot of repairs. The problem cannot be fixed because mediocrity and denial is ingrained in their corporate culture. It's ingrained in management, engineering and the production line. It's everywhere. They have no more chance of fixing their problem than a 60-year-old, fat lady has of becoming a sexy, 18-year-old, rock star. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon
It is a curiosity that British-owned manufacturers are hopeless at producing
cars profitably in larger quantities (and hence have disappeared), and yet southern and central England is the home of that cottage industry of kit cars and world-class racing, incl Indy. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- "DeserTBoB" > wrote in message ... [...] > However, over in the UK, other forces were at work to prevent reliable > automobiles...mostly engineering incompetence, and that's a whole > different story! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Visit to the Ford Dealer | Mort Guffman | Ford Mustang | 25 | July 24th 06 08:45 PM |
Ford & Mustang fans, we need your support in convincing Ford.. | FordMuscle | Ford Mustang | 3 | June 10th 06 01:06 AM |
Ford Loses $1.2B As Restructuring Begins | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 1 | April 22nd 06 04:26 AM |
OEM Ford Lincoln Mercury Ford Truck parts catalogs for sale | Joe | Ford Mustang | 0 | April 2nd 06 09:15 PM |
Ford Posts Profit, Autos Disappoint Again | Grover C. McCoury III | Ford Mustang | 1 | January 20th 05 06:05 PM |