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.

 

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')

 

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')

 

That's about the dumbest analogy I've read in a long time

 

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!

 

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.

 

That is entirely correct.

The reality is that they have a quality problem, period. Ford,

All automakers have fallen in and out of that trap from time to time.
GM, which many people automatically equate to "all American cars" has
certainly been guilty of that for most of its post-WWII existence.
Everything from selling a splash-oiled inline 6 well into the 1950s, to
the TH200 transmission debacle of the 80s, to the DexCool fiasco of the
00's, GM has screwed it up. OTOH, Ford has only slipped into the trap
very occasionally, and Chrysler almost never (rushing the 4-speed
electronic transmission to production too early in 1989 being a notable
exception). Mercedes has pretty well avoided it, although the M-class
fiasco did show a weakness. Nissan lived most of the late 90s in a
state of dependence of clever advertizing and wretched product, and as a
result no longer exist as an independent company (part of Renault now).
Ditto for Saab (owned by GM- no help there!) and Volvo (a Ford product
now). Toyota has flirted with it as well, taking far too long to
acknowledge poor engineering and pretending that people will buy
anything if it falls under the "Toyota quality aura."

 

About as good a synopsis of American business in general, let alone
the auto industry, as I've seen in quite awhile. Thanks to fathead
management, US industry as a whole is sinking into third world status.

 

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

 

The British have never been adept at mass production of anything.
Rather, their forte has always been, and will always be, custom hand
worked items of exceptional quality, as the aforementional race cars
show continually. It's this seemingly genetic trait that made a Rolls
a Rolls for decades...the impeccable quality of hand fitting and
unsurpassed workmanship.

 

This makes me appreciate my FluidDrive even more! I wish that
Chrysler would come back with that one, gives me the option of
clutching or not!

 

I had a girlfriend in my late teens who always drove Grandma's '53 De
Soto with Fluid Drive on dates, so I know that box a little bit. Like
anything with Chrysler transmissions, it seemed to be troublefree. I
remember it had very nice black and white paint and a HUGE back seat.

I never did get a convincing bit of data about which two speed was
better overall...Powerflite or Chevy's lousy "Powerslide." Seems
every '55 and '56 Chrysler product I ever came across with Powerflite
never had any troubles, either.

 

Before I got my 1940 Royal coupe, I had a 49 Windsor sedan with
FluidDrive. It was the dual-range, two lower speeds, two high speeds.
Always kept it in high range, just required me to lift my foot and a
little "clunk" and I was good to go. It was a little slow off the
mark, considering that the Windsor weighed in at over 4,000 lbs.! but
it sure was smooth! My Grandfather had a 51 Dodge with FluidDrive and
I don't think he ever used the clutch except to get started initially!

 

The problem with Fluid Drive in the era of HydraMatic, Fordomatic and
Powerslide, was that in order to use the transmission to best
advantage, one had to have half a brain. Certain people don't like to
think, and those are the ones who thought poorly of Fluid Drive, I'm
sure. I remember as a kid a niece of my grandaunt drove a '54 Savoy
(lemon yellow with white top as I remember) from Lincoln, NE to
Riverside, CA, with Fluid Drive. I remember sitting in the front
room, listening to the conversation about how she wouldn't trade her
Plymouth for anything from GM, even a Cadillac!

I can't remember the details, but evidently the flathead six in the
Plymouth had turned in very respectable fuel economy on that trip. She
and her mother DID complain, quite a bit, about those awful moutain
grades coming out west, though! Years later, when I had my first car,
a 1950 Ford Fordor Custom my dad had bought new off the assembly line
at the old Long Beach, CA plant, I wondered why the Ford V8, at 100
HP, produced less power and ate more gas than the Chrysler flattie
sixes. My Ford would be hard pressed to turn in 16 on the road, while
similar Plymouths would easily get 19 or more. Hell, Ford's OWN 6 for
1950 had five more horsepower than the supposedly "legendary" V8! It
would go away finally in '53 with a scant 110 HP, while sixes were
producing more. So much for "V8 power!" Of course, the undersquare
OHVs would fix that problem once and for all time.

 

As any reader can see, so much for DeserTBob's short-lived
"pro-American" attitude towards old cars !! About a week ago he was
here posting away quacking about a ' 55 Dodge he supposedly had a $500
deposit on. Now he is bashing all the American Big Three- because in
reality, he's an unemployed dirtbag ricer who drives a shitbox 1978
Honda.

And he obviously didn't hear about the upcoming GM-Ford merger.

We'll see how the riceboys like competing with that behemoth of a
corporation.

If the ricers are so great, how come GM is still #1 after ALL THESE
YEARS ?

Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

 

Where the heck have you been ? GM just offered a 100,000 mile 5-year
guarantee on all their cars- didn't you see the ads ?

Are you saying Toyota and Nissan are better cars ?? That's a laugh !
You actually prefer those plastic shitboxes ?

 

the dumb ass who made the OP failed to say, Ford went to #3 in sales,
and Toyota is #2 now in USA- which is understandable since they have
many plants here in the USA now.

 

Why the talks with Ford then?

Yeah, like why would Ford and GM even talk unless they were getting
their asses kicked, like you on Usenet.

 

On 19 Sep 2006 05:09:01 -0700, Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA, aka
"duty-honor-country" (who never served a day of his worthless life in

Hey idiot stick..."merger" is not a verb. The word is
"merge"...moron.

A merger like this is a marriage of losers, similar to the
Pennsylvania/New York Central merger of 1968. Both PRR and NYC were
broke, and combining the two made the situation even worse. For more
on this complete disaster, read the book, "The Wreck Of The Penn
Central," and you'll see just how incompetent and greedy American
management and investors really are. As it turned out, the Penn
Central had to be scooped up by the Carter Administration and be put
into working order, and the resultant Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail) turned out to be one of the best run railroads in the
country under government ownership. However, the Repukes, under Bush
The Dumber, simply handed it off, after all that taxpayer investment,
to CSX and Norfolk Southern, the former being a HUGE Republican
political cash cow. NS, being the home of the Brothers Claytor (W.
Graham Claytor, former president of Amtrak, was Carter's Secretary of
the Navy and lifelong Democrat) was thrown some crumbs to quell
political rancor on the Hill. The original Bush/Rove plan was to let
CSX have ALL of Conrail as a reward for helping get the village idiot
elected. To keep Union Pacific quiet, they were given Southern
Pacific, despite anti-competition claims from BNSF and Kansas City
Southern and numerous feeder short line operators.

Big corporations in the US fail quickly. Just look what happened to
GM, Ford, AT&T, Eastman Kodak, Sunbeam...any of them...gone or dying
due to shareholder greed and incompetent management..

Toyota will pass them in the '07 model year. GM's market share has
been shrinking ever since they started foisting shitty cars on the US
public in the early '70s.

You, maybe, being a paranoid delusional right wing nutbag like you,
Noodles. To me, it's just simple logic...GM's dying, and will take a
dying Ford down with it if this merger is approved...which it won't be
for Sherman Anti-Trust Act violations. DaimlerChrysler and possible a
number of the lesser Asian manufacturers with US plants will sue and
be successful in Federal court in stopping any such "merger."

As usual, Charlie Nudo is talking through his ass, since his brain is
too scrambled to know the difference between his anus and his mouth.
Must be comical watching him try to eat!