View Full Version : What Ford Needs To Do...



05-12-2002, 11:57 PM
Spotted this Editorial here...<P> <A HREF="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/fo/20020510/bs_fo/the_ford_revolution" TARGET=_blank>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/fo/20020510/bs_fo/the_ford_revolution</A> <P>The Ford Revolution <BR>Fri May 10,10:48 AM ET <P>The Ford Revolution <P> <BR>A hundred years ago, Lenin published his revolution-fomenting essay, "What Is To Be Done?" I'm asking, too, but about Ford Motor. You recall William Clay Ford Jr. stepped in and pushed out chief executive Jacques Nasser as the company deteriorated. Nasser started out well but became consumed by every management fad around--globalism, diversity, e-business and consumerism--instead of concentrating on building good cars and trucks. Many of the top people don't know the American market. <BR> <P>So what is to be done? First, recognize that America is where Ford will live or die, building and selling cars and trucks here. Too many Ford people think the company's future is in London, where its Premier Auto Group, which includes Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover and Aston Martin, is overseen. (Lincoln has been reassigned to the U.S. organization.) The foreign premier brands account for maybe 20% of Ford's automotive revenues. But they are a sideshow, and Ford had better realize this fast. <P>General Motors has turned itself around with a successful truck program here, not with foreign luxury cars. The big money, the billions of dollars in profits, is in trucks, not Jaguars, Volvos or Aston Martins. <P>Bill Ford was right to oust Nasser, but the work of rebuilding Ford is just starting. And the company desperately needs some visible leadership. Everything seems to be going in slow motion. A point: Ford doesn't have a ranking officer in charge of trucks, the single most important part of its business. I urge Ford to put its brightest American executive in charge of trucks--not solely a marketer but somebody who knows something about design, engineering and production--and give him or her the rank of group vice president. <P>To run these operations, Ford must find people who know the American market. Nicholas Scheele, the new president and chief operations officer, is a good and able man but he's a European who has been working in Europe. In the past I wrote the same thing about Ford's European operations, that it needed Europeans running that business (Feb. 10, 1997). It was only when Ford put this same Nick Scheele in charge over there that Europe began straightening out. <P>If necessary Ford should blow the bugle and call out of retirement the men who led the company to greatness in the past. Like Ed Hagenlocker, who whipped GM in trucks, or Robert Rewey and Ross Roberts, great marketing men, or, yes, put the one and only Lee Iacocca on the board. GM did something similar when it made longtime car exec Robert Lutz product vice chairman last fall. But Ford doesn't need a single-product czar. Historically it had the best product-planning department around. Resurrect it. <P>Then let the Americans design and build vehicles for America. Stop taking basic design and engineering guidance from Japanese Mazda and Ford Europe. The products that have resulted from this "globalism" have generally had flat and boring designs--one year of good sales and then they fizzle. <P>What is to be done about the products? <P>Pickup trucks are the first priority. The big F-150 series and the smaller Ranger must be improved. The Ranger, which has been America's bestselling small truck, is old and GM will have a superior competitor next year. <P>Next, more spinoffs from the pickups. That means building variations using the same basic frame. That's what GM is doing with its Chevrolet Avalanche and the coming Hummer H2, both of which are built on a common platform with the Silverado pickup. This is how to build volume off one frame and make huge profits. Ford has some such variations but needs more. <P>Save Mercury dealers with a small sport utility vehicle, like the Escape. Make it a woodie. This should be a six-month job. Then create a full line of rear-wheel-drive vehicles for Mercury, meaning a sedan, convertible and station wagon. In fact, build a wagon version for Lincoln, too. <P>Build a smaller Taurus that looks as good as an Audi, and offer it as a four- as well as a six-cylinder engine (like the Japanese Honda Accord and Toyota Camry). <P>But the key is to rebuild that American product-planning team. There will be a Ford in our future, and that stock isn't going to sit at $15 forever. But Ford must get off its backside and race. Lenin answered his own question about what was to be done this way: no compromises, no halfway measures to a Bolshevik revolution. I say to Ford: no compromises, no halfway measures. Build great cars and trucks. <P>

anony00gt
05-13-2002, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Then let the Americans design and build vehicles for America. Stop taking basic design and engineering guidance from Japanese Mazda and Ford Europe. The products that have resulted from this "globalism" have generally had flat and boring designs--one year of good sales and then they fizzle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I don't know about that. The Focus is doing pretty darn good. This is just a large-scale version of the "many vehicles from one frame" theory. Good way to make profits provided the cars are built with the local interests in mind. We saw the mistake when Ford introduced the european Mondeo into America virtually unchanged and called it a Contour. Keep the basic car the same, but change details to appeal to the locals where the car is sold.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The big F-150 series and the smaller Ranger must be improved. The Ranger, which has been America's bestselling small truck, is old and GM will have a superior competitor next year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Disagreed. GM has had a competent competitor in the S10 pickup for years. The F-150 has been, and still is, the bestselling vehicle in America. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Next, more spinoffs from the pickups. That means building variations using the same basic frame. That's what GM is doing with its Chevrolet Avalanche and the coming Hummer H2, both of which are built on a common platform with the Silverado pickup. This is how to build volume off one frame and make huge profits. Ford has some such variations but needs more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is a way to make money, but at the expense of safety, fuel economy, and practicality. The key is to start pushing their cars more and the SUVs less in the advertising department. Unfortunately, most people will fall for advertisements and media hype like fish going for bait, hence the reason SUVs sell so well. The new Hummer H2 is going to cost $52k. Every car driver will learn to despise that oversized piece of $hit when they get tailgated and cut off by the soccer mom piloting one while talking on the cell phone. Use the "one frame base" theory with a car frame, not a truck frame.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>create a full line of rear-wheel-drive vehicles for Mercury, meaning a sedan, convertible and station wagon. In fact, build a wagon version for Lincoln, too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Now that's more on the right track. Build RWD or AWD sedans and wagons, possibly on the Crown Vic platform again, or even the DEW platform, and push them hard in the advertising department. Offer them with 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder engines under Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln names to fit a wide variety of budgets.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Build a smaller Taurus that looks as good as an Audi, and offer it as a four- as well as a six-cylinder engine (like the Japanese Honda Accord and Toyota Camry). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>They did this with the Taurus redesign a few years back. Comparing an Audi (A4 I'm assuming they mean) to a Accord or Camry is comparing Apples to Oranges. The Taurus is very close in size to the Accord/Camry, but lack of a 4-cylinder option may be detrimental to its sales. Ford needs a small sedan to fit between the Taurus and Focus. The Contour was a good idea, but they need a car that works.<P>

T5 Dave
05-13-2002, 12:30 PM
Ford has pissed me off big time. I'm ashamed my money was ever spent on that company, and I've bought 6 new ones (if you include the S60 and S80) over the last 17 years.<P>What got me so upset was when the IIHS published the pathetic offset crash test results on the F-150 ( <A HREF="http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm</A> ) Ford promptly advertised the truck as "Build Ford Tough, Built Ford Safe" while touting the NHTSA side crash test as getting "5 Stars." The IIHS offset test clearly shows the vehicle as incapable of protecting its occupants, and Ford used deceptive tactics to blow over the issue.<P>I guess it worked, idiots are buying F-150's like no tomorrow. But it galls me that the buying public is so gullible. <P>This guy says Ford should make <I>more</I> trucks?!?! Idiot. (He probably wonders why gas is so expensive, too. Gosh, could all the gas hog SUV's have anything to do with that? Duh.)<P>Let's look at the Ford lineup:<P>Focus: Too small, underpowered.<P>Mustang: Too small, still has a solid rear axle. (The IRS was designed 13 years ago for the MN-12 T-bird. Why so late getting into the Mustang, and then only on the Cobra?!?)<P>Taurus: Too big, underpowered, slaloms like a whale.<P>T-bird: a joke. "limited production" to keep price arbitrarily high. Too small, not practical.<P>Escape: Rollover machine extraordinaire: short wheelbase, high CG. Will the roof hold up in a rollover? Yeesh. I don't wanna find out.<P>Explorer: too big, gas guzzler, drives like a 747. (they fly like a big hog, BTW) Roof definitely collapses in a rollover.<P>Expedition: Donald Trump's living room on wheels.<P>Excursion: Expedition-sized living room with a built-in Atrium tossed in to boot.<P>In short, there's nothing in the Ford lineup that remotely interests me. Toss in the misleading advertising and as an ex-loyal customer I'm outta their showrooms for good.<P>Volvos? Nope, sorry, they made the sunroof standard equipment, so that leaves them off of my list. Hopefully mine will last a long time, but I wouldn't want to spend another dime on Ford products in the future.<P>

anony00gt
05-13-2002, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>I guess it worked, idiots are buying F-150's like no tomorrow. But it galls me that the buying public is so gullible.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are you kidding? The majority of F-150 buyers aren't looking for a safe vehicle. They're looking for a vehicle that will allow them to do their job! Only a few people get a pickup because they want a truck, those people are usually suckered into an Expedition or worse.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Focus: Too small, underpowered.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Sure it's small. It doesn't have enough power for my tastes either. But it does have more power than its #1 competitor, the Honda Civic. This car is a good candidate for people looking for econoboxes, as well as kids looking to build a "pocket rocket", or even those who just want to make some rlce. The aftermarket for the Focus has exploded, there are already supercharger kits out there for both the "ZTEC" and SVT versions. MM&FF Magazine started with a 130hp ZX3 a few months ago just to see what they could do with it. Now it's making well over 200hp at the wheels and is about half a carlength short of posing a serious threat to stock V8 Mustangs with (I think) less than $5000 in mods. Either way, the Focus's are selling like hotcakes. That car was probably the smartest thing Ford did in the last couple years.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Mustang: Too small, still has a solid rear axle. (The IRS was designed 13 years ago for the MN-12 T-bird. Why so late getting into the Mustang, and then only on the Cobra?!?)</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Do research before you speak on the Mustang. You ever try to launch a 99-01 Cobra with an IRS at the drag strip? The wheel hop is incredibly detrimental in the 60'. Solid axle is the choice for drag racers, and many 99-01 Cobra owners trash the IRS in favor if a solid axle. IRS may be the shoice for road racers, but many more mustangs are drag raced than road raced. Even then, I know people who road race with the GT and earlier Cobras, and the complaints about the solid axle are few and far between. I drag race, and I would never choose to do so with an IRS. And of course it's small, it's a friggin sports car for cryin out loud. What's next, you going to tell me that 2 seats is not enough for a Miata, MR2, Corvette, or Viper? <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif"><P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Taurus: Too big, underpowered, slaloms like a whale.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are the Accord and Camry too big also? Are the 4-cylinder versions of those cars also underpowered? The Taurus offers a 155hp V6 and a 200hp V6, both of which are about on par with the 4-cylinder and 6-cylinder versions of the Japanese sedans. The Taurus is also very close in measurements to the Accord and Camry. Just the fact that you can get the Taurus in a wagon is also a plus. It may have some shortcomings in the handling department, but how many Taurus buyers are really going to push them to the limit? People buy a car like that for a practical daily driver. Sure there are some shortcomings in the ergonomics department, but these can be easily fixed once Ford puts their mind to it. The key is to push the sedans and wagons in advertising. I don't think I've ever seen a commercial on TV for the Taurus, but SUV commercials are like a rampant disease every time I turn on the boob tube.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Volvos? Nope, sorry, they made the sunroof standard equipment, so that leaves them off of my list.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I would think that someone who lives in "Sunland, CA" would love a sunroof. Guess that's not true <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/confused.gif"><P><BR>So now that we've established that every Ford is too big or too small for you, what is the perfect car for you? Do you feel the same about the Chevy lineup? That the Cavilier is too small and the Impala is too big? The Malibu is a nice fit in between, Ford needs something like that to fit between the Focus and Taurus, that's key. There should also be a wagon version of it offered. I agree with your points on the SUVs, those things friggin suck.<P><BR>

T5 Dave
05-14-2002, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anony00gt:<BR><B>
Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR>I guess it worked, idiots are buying F-150's like no tomorrow. But it galls me that the buying public is so gullible.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are you kidding? The majority of F-150 buyers aren't looking for a safe vehicle. They're looking for a vehicle that will allow them to do their job! Only a few people get a pickup because they want a truck, those people are usually suckered into an Expedition or worse.<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Focus: Too small, underpowered.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Sure it's small. It doesn't have enough power for my tastes either. But it does have more power than its #1 competitor, the Honda Civic. This car is a good candidate for people looking for econoboxes, as well as kids looking to build a "pocket rocket", or even those who just want to make some rlce. The aftermarket for the Focus has exploded, there are already supercharger kits out there for both the "ZTEC" and SVT versions. MM&FF Magazine started with a 130hp ZX3 a few months ago just to see what they could do with it. Now it's making well over 200hp at the wheels and is about half a carlength short of posing a serious threat to stock V8 Mustangs with (I think) less than $5000 in mods. Either way, the Focus's are selling like hotcakes. That car was probably the smartest thing Ford did in the last couple years.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Mustang: Too small, still has a solid rear axle. (The IRS was designed 13 years ago for the MN-12 T-bird. Why so late getting into the Mustang, and then only on the Cobra?!?)</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Do research before you speak on the Mustang. You ever try to launch a 99-01 Cobra with an IRS at the drag strip? The wheel hop is incredibly detrimental in the 60'. Solid axle is the choice for drag racers, and many 99-01 Cobra owners trash the IRS in favor if a solid axle. IRS may be the shoice for road racers, but many more mustangs are drag raced than road raced. Even then, I know people who road race with the GT and earlier Cobras, and the complaints about the solid axle are few and far between. I drag race, and I would never choose to do so with an IRS. And of course it's small, it's a friggin sports car for cryin out loud. What's next, you going to tell me that 2 seats is not enough for a Miata, MR2, Corvette, or Viper? <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif"><P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Taurus: Too big, underpowered, slaloms like a whale.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Are the Accord and Camry too big also? Are the 4-cylinder versions of those cars also underpowered? The Taurus offers a 155hp V6 and a 200hp V6, both of which are about on par with the 4-cylinder and 6-cylinder versions of the Japanese sedans. The Taurus is also very close in measurements to the Accord and Camry. Just the fact that you can get the Taurus in a wagon is also a plus. It may have some shortcomings in the handling department, but how many Taurus buyers are really going to push them to the limit? People buy a car like that for a practical daily driver. Sure there are some shortcomings in the ergonomics department, but these can be easily fixed once Ford puts their mind to it. The key is to push the sedans and wagons in advertising. I don't think I've ever seen a commercial on TV for the Taurus, but SUV commercials are like a rampant disease every time I turn on the boob tube.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>Volvos? Nope, sorry, they made the sunroof standard equipment, so that leaves them off of my list.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I would think that someone who lives in "Sunland, CA" would love a sunroof. Guess that's not true <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/confused.gif"><P><BR>So now that we've established that every Ford is too big or too small for you, what is the perfect car for you? Do you feel the same about the Chevy lineup? That the Cavilier is too small and the Impala is too big? The Malibu is a nice fit in between, Ford needs something like that to fit between the Focus and Taurus, that's key. There should also be a wagon version of it offered. I agree with your points on the SUVs, those things friggin suck.<P><P>First off, I'd like to point out that I stated there was noting in the Ford lineup that interested <I>me</I>, I couldn't care a whit about anyone else. And yes, I do know several people that use full-size pickups just to commute 40 miles each way to work every day (one commutes 80 miles one way); they rarely use them to carry loads.<P>You've made my point on the Mustang on why it's an outdated <I>street</I> car: the solid rear axle may be great for the track but the vast majority of cars are used on the street where the IRS is s lot more useful. So leave the solid axle as an option for all I care so the racers can enjoy, my '91 T-bird handled a lot better on the street (albeit with the Koni's on all 4 corners.) <P>Taurus, Camry, Accord: I don't care, I'm not in the market for them because the power to weight ratio is too low for <I>me</I>. The GM's cars are downright ugly or their power to weight numbers are just too low <I>for me</I>. 247 hp the 3150 lb S60 puts it on the heels of a Mustang, and that's what I want, <I>an upscale Mustang with more practicality of interior room.</I> (Note the Mustang is so small I can't fit in it and its useful space is rather limited. Hence my pick of the S60.) The Jag XK8 was a bit too pricey for my taste and had the interior room limitation problem. The MN-12 T-bird was a great choice with the V8, IRS, ABS after I put on the Konis, GT-40 heads, and Cobra intake manifold. (You can find those parts in a junkyard somewhere, the car is now 12 inches shorter than when it left the factory after the hit-and-run totaled it.) But right now there is no upscale Mustang in the Ford lineup. Ford could have had an easy winner with the MN-12 SVT Thunderbird, but they never produced it for fear of losing Mustang sales (not realizing they lost me in the process.)<P>Plus, I am <I>totally</I> pissed off at Ford for the outright lying and deception about the F-150 offset-crash safety issue. I happen to have an F-150, and with the number of other full-size pickups out there, the probability that one will cross over into my lane and hit me in an offset condition is not zero. I don't drive the truck much, anymore.<P>P.S., the sunroof cuts out my headroom to the point where I get concussions when the car hits potholes (very painful), they let in pollen to aggrivate my allergies, they add extra weight that hampers the vehicle's performance, and they leak in the rain. So I don't find them useful in the <I>slightest.</I><BR>

anony00gt
05-14-2002, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>You've made my point on the Mustang on why it's an outdated <I>street</I> car: the solid rear axle may be great for the track but the vast majority of cars are used on the street where the IRS is s lot more useful.[/i]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Too bad the vast majority of drivers will never know the difference (ie most V6 Mustang customers). Hence the reason Ford retained the cheaper soid axle (increased profit margin).<P><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>247 hp the 3150 lb S60 puts it on the heels of a Mustang, and that's what I want, <I>an upscale Mustang with more practicality of interior room.</I></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You think an S60 T5 is "on the heels" of a Mustang? PLEASE save me the aggrivation. The car will run low 15s, maybe if your lucky it sill break into the 14s. 99+ Mustang GT's are capable of running 13-second 1/4 mile times right off the lot. My car hit a 13.8 @ 100.61 with just a K&N. The S60 is a sport sedan comparable to the BMW 3-series and Audi A4. Stop kidding yourself.<P>I'm not even going to address that rediculous statement about the sunroof.<P>

T5 Dave
05-14-2002, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anony00gt:<P><BR>
Originally posted by T5 Dave:<BR><B>247 hp the 3150 lb S60 puts it on the heels of a Mustang, and that's what I want, <I>an upscale Mustang with more practicality of interior room.</I></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You think an S60 T5 is "on the heels" of a Mustang? PLEASE save me the aggrivation. The car will run low 15s, maybe if your lucky it sill break into the 14s. 99+ Mustang GT's are capable of running 13-second 1/4 mile times right off the lot. My car hit a 13.8 @ 100.61 with just a K&N. The S60 is a sport sedan comparable to the BMW 3-series and Audi A4. Stop kidding yourself.<P>I'm not even going to address that rediculous statement about the sunroof.<BR>[/B]<P>Congratulations! Obviously you're short enough to fit into a Mustang. I'm not.<P>What I don't understand is if the IRS is a problem in the Cobra, why has the 'vette had an IRS for years with no problems launching 350 hp at 350 ft-lb of torque? Even more for the newer units, up to 400 ft-lb in the Z06. <A HREF="http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/1998/September/199809_roadtest_chevrolet_corvettehardtop.xml?&Manufacturer=Chevrolet&Name=Corvette&class=20&page=1" TARGET=_blank>http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/roadtests/1998/September/199809_roadtest_chevrolet_corvettehardtop.xml?&Manufacturer=Chevrolet&Name=Corvette&class=20&page=1</A> The '98 hardtop 'vette's 1/4 mile time is 13.2 at 110 mph (oops, sorry, looks like you came up short there, too) so they must've solved the wheel hop problem. Clearly Ford is too lazy or on the short end of the stick in the engineering talent department.<P>Which is what we've been saying all along.<BR>

anony00gt
05-14-2002, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The '98 hardtop 'vette's 1/4 mile time is 13.2 at 110 mph (oops, sorry, looks like you came up short there, too) so they must've solved the wheel hop problem. Clearly Ford is too lazy or on the short end of the stick in the engineering talent department.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>The Vette is designed as a road racer (Hence the classification "sports car" and not "muscle car"), but the LS1/LS6 power also gives it great drag racing potential. Wheel hop is still a problem, just not as bad. To see the problem you have to look at the 60' times, not the 1/4 mile ET and trap speed. It's hard to see on the Vette because they all have an IRS, and there's nothing to compare.<P><BR>Ford <I>DID</I> realize their error with the 99-01 IRS and they <I>DID</I> fix it for the '03 Cobras (which, BTW, ran mid-12s in magazine tests). I still would rather have a solid axle on a car that's going to be drag raced.<P><BR>Yes, the Vette is faster. However, I never compared my Stang in any way, shape, or form to a Corvette, nor do I have any intention of doing so. Totally different car, totally different price bracket. Mustang would be more closely compared to a Camaro or Firebird (mid-13s, solid axle, same price range). You flat out called your S60 an "upscale Mustang", which was a rediculously false statement.<P>

Vetteguy
05-15-2002, 09:20 AM
Dave, it is not a lack of engineering on Ford's part but a cost issue. The Vette does do low 13s but it will cost you 45 large to do so. Go price up a base GT Mustang. Similarly, the F Body GM cars were also solid axle designs which is why you could get into a Z28 for thousands less than a base S60.<P>The Vette actually has a unique IRS setup that does not use coil springs. They use a transverse leaf spring that runs pretty much from hub to hub across the car and have been for 30 years or more. Most hard core racers replace it with a traditional set up. Mine hops all over the lane in the 440.<P><P>

Freeworld
06-05-2002, 07:30 PM
Dave,<BR>I still can't understand your sunroof aversion. My brother is 6'5" and has no problem driving my S60 with a sunroof. Some car designs actually have more headroom with the sunroof. As for weight, they add less than my girlfriend sitting next to me or my groceries in the trunk. And I've owned several over the last 20 years and none have ever leaked. This is a wives tale, since most are actually designed to take water in and channel it down and out a drain.<BR>

Lisa62
06-05-2002, 10:10 PM
Gotta side with T5 Dave on the sunroof issue. I've owned two cars with sunroofs, and they introduced so MANY problems that I vowed to never again get one, but I was forced to do so because it was paired with the automatic transmission on my S60.<P>There are more parts & seals that flex, bend, crack over time, more electrical "issues" that crop up over time, and if you leave the bleepin' shade open, more sun damage to your interior. If you like it open while you drive, but then close the shade every time you park it (during the daytime at work, for example), you introduce a lot of wear and tear on a sliding part, and everybody knows that sliding joints are the worst type possible. They jam. The fabric at the edges wears out, pills up, etc.<P>I don't mean to paint an overly gloom-and-doom picture, but I <I>do</I> think that the sunroof introduces "risk" that many of us just don't want to pony up to. I hated the fact that it was tied to the automatic. (Sure, it's not tied together if you go with overseas delivery, but some of us don't have the luxury of time to do that.)<P>Headroom is the other issue. It doesn't matter if your height is X and some other guys is X, you can both still have totally different torso heights when sitting (by several inches).<P>An aside, if you ever think you're going drive your car at any type of track event, you'll need to have headroom for your helmet. Forget THAT if you've got a sunroof!<P>I will admit I like one thing about it, though -- the ability to use it as a vent on a hot day. However, if it was a free-standing option, I still would have gone with NO sunroof! It irks me to pay for an extra "hole" in my sheetmetal, which they fill with glass and a million little rubber seals and trim pieces that are aching to break, jam, get out of line, etc. over time. Call me Amish, but I like my roof PLAIN and simple, thankyouverymuch!

GrecianVolvo
06-06-2002, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lisa62:<BR><B> Call me Amish, but I like my roof PLAIN and simple, thankyouverymuch! </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Lisa <I>STOLTZFUS</I>...boy! Never seen you complaining this much! <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/tongue.gif"><P>Today's sunroofs are not as primitive as 10 years ago...they got double and triple seals, etc. And don't worry about either your interior or your coiffure fading to oblivion (or you would have the Enya-look)...the glass is heavily TINTED for that same reason...<P>Hey...enjoy your sunroof..And since you were a "bad" girl and know how much you like Elmo here you go:<BR> <IMG SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/new/elmo2.gif"> LaLah LaLah LaLah...ELMO'S WORLD!!!<BR><P>

Lisa62
06-06-2002, 12:54 AM
Elmo? This late? You are too cruel, my friend, too cruel! Ha ha. <P>And yes, you're right about how they've come a long way. I suppose they're probably made a lot better they were back then. Sure hope so, b/c I'm stuck with it, like it or not!

T5 Dave
06-06-2002, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freeworld:<BR><B>Dave,<BR>I still can't understand your sunroof aversion. My brother is 6'5" and has no problem driving my S60 with a sunroof. Some car designs actually have more headroom with the sunroof. As for weight, they add less than my girlfriend sitting next to me or my groceries in the trunk. And I've owned several over the last 20 years and none have ever leaked. This is a wives tale, since most are actually designed to take water in and channel it down and out a drain.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>When I test drove the S60 a year and a half ago I had about a quarter of an inch of headroom; when the car hit a dip my head smacked into the headliner around the sunroof. It was quite painful. I just have a tall torso.<P>Well, yeah, there are channels to run off the water, but never underestimate the insidiousness of water. When it comes to sunroofs and T-tops, (at least on the cars I know about of friends who have them) they complained the water actually found a way to run <I>uphill</I> out of the channel and into the car, typically to drip on his head. <P>This is actually easy to explain if you're an aerodynamicist: When the car is in motion the airflow over the top of the car creates just a tad of lift like a wing airfoil as the air passes over the roof. In an aerodynamic sense there is a slight 'low' pressure of air over the roof of the car. The air pressure in the cabin is at static pressure or slightly over static pressure with the HVAC blower. (Static pressure is higher than the low pressure over the roof. Well, just a little, but it doesn't take a lot.) If there's an air leak from the cabin to the sunroof seal area there will be a slight flow of air from the cabin to the low pressure flow outside on the roof. Any trapped water (even if it's in the water drain channel) that tries to impede that airflow will be pulled <I>uphill</I>. Of course, it will fall down again, sort of in a cyclic-splashing mode, but sometimes it falls on the wrong side of the seal and leaks <I>into </I>the car. Hence, the thing still leaks in the rain.<P>So nah, I just don't want to bother with a sunroof. I really do hate the things. It's just me.<P>I hear the G35 might come without a sunroof. But hopefully I won't have to worry about it for another 9 years because my S60 T5 sans sunroof will last that long, maybe longer.

Freeworld
06-06-2002, 02:47 PM
Now T-tops and targas are another animal altogether. No manufacturer has yet been able to keep them from rattling, leaking, etc.<P>It's not that I have no sympathy, after all, I think my dad has the only Lincoln LS on the road without a sunroof.

anony00gt
06-11-2002, 12:46 AM
T-tops own <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/biggrin.gif"><P>I don't care if they're perfect or not, T-tops OWN. My friend has a Ttrans-Am, and nothing is more fun than taking the T-tops off on a nice night and driving around looking for r1cers to pick on <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/tongue.gif"> <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/biggrin.gif"><P>

towerymt
06-11-2002, 01:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anony00gt:<BR><B>I don't care if they're perfect or not, T-tops OWN. My friend has a Ttrans-Am, and nothing is more fun than taking the T-tops off on a nice night and driving around looking for r1cers to pick on <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/tongue.gif"> <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/biggrin.gif"><BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I had a friend who owned an '87 TA with t-tops. They were great in the summer for just cruising around, but there wasn't really room in the car to haul them around while driving. At least they never rattled or leaked, but the front windows with no frames on the door would sometimes leak in heavy rain.<P>

anony00gt
06-12-2002, 02:03 AM
His leak ever so slightly in heavy downpours, that's about it. Under the hatch is a place to stick the tops when they're off, they latch in there. You're right though, you can't carry much cargo with the T-tops in the trunk. Then again, if you want to carry stuff don't get a sports car <IMG SRC="https://www.swedespeed.com/ubb/tongue.gif"><P>