waymondospiff

I have to disagree with the complainers about the XC60's styling. I think it's unique, different, and fresh. Comparing (below) the XC60 & XC90 it's a clear evolution, just as effective as the X5 evolution, the ML-Series, the E-Class, or the 3-Series - all evolutions that keep a familiar look but update the execution. As evidence: Volvo XC60 at a front-side-elevation angle Volvo XC90 at a front-side angle Volvo XC60 from behind Volvo XC90 from behind A lot of the "themes" are the same, but an updated version of those themes. I like it and I think it will do well for Volvo. Scott

Wow. Well, this information is certainly going to influence MY vote. :rolleyes: Scott

Quick summation: Car-of-the-Year nominees: Audi A4 BMW 1-Series Cadillac CTS-V Dodge Challenger Ford Flex Honda Fit Hyundai Genesis Jaguar XF Lincoln MKS Mazda6 Nissan GT-R Pontiac G8 Toyota Venza Volkswagen Jetta TDI Truck-of-the-Year nominees: BMW X6 Chevrolet Traverse Dodge Ram Ford F-150 Honda Pilot Infiniti FX35/50 Kia Borrego Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTec Nissan Murano Saturn Vue 2-Mode Hybrid Subaru Forester Vokswagen Tiguan Winners last year: COTY - Chevy Malibu TOTY - Mazda CX-9 I don't get how the Venza & Flex are cars and X6 & Murano are trucks. Classification by dart board? Scott

I fail to see the discontinuation of the Vulcan-equipped Ranger as a loss. The 4.0L has provided similar if not identical fuel economy numbers while providing more power. I don't order them, obviously, like you Dean, so maybe there was a lot of demand for them, but the 4.0L is a step up in the Ranger, in my estimation. Of course, that said, it'd be nice if the Cologne V6 was dropped altogether and replaced by a Duratec derivative. We'll see when that happens... Scott

My vision for a "worldly C-Segment Lincoln": Mazda RX-8 Chassis (stretched a touch in wheelbase/length/width/track) + Volvo 3.2L Inline-Six (bumped to ~300hp (from 235 current)) + 6-Speed Manual & 6-Speed Dual-Clutch Automatic (From Volvo, or in-house Ford.) + A completely new Lincoln "top-hat." (Courtesy of Peter Horbury, of course.) Am I dreaming? Dimension - RX8 - 135i - 328i - is250 - C-Class Length - 174.3" - 171.7" - 178.2" - 180.1" - 182.3" Width - 69.7" - 68.8" - 71.5" - 70.9" - 69.7" Height - 52.8" - 55.4" - 55.9" - 56.1" - 56.3" Wheelbase - 106.4" - 104.7" - 108.7" - 107.5" - 108.7" F. Track - 58.9" - 58.4" - 59.1" - 60.4" - 60.4" R. Track - 59.3" - 59.7" - 59.6" - 60.4" - 59.6" The RX-8 is already a spot-on match in dimensions. And "As-Is" the RX-8 has a larger backseat than the is250 & 135i. Far fetched? Or "synergy" waiting to happen? That'd be a hot-rod Lincoln. Scott

Hadn't it already been announced sometime in the last year that the Viper was being cancelled in 2009 or 2010? I thought so... I agree that Chrysler has bigger problems to worry about than the Viper. The Challenger is a worthy "halo" car and one that is much easier/cheaper for Chrysler to produce, and it provides more upside as far as marketing the entire Dodge lineup. I'll be sad to see the Viper go, but it should go out gracefully - several limited edition versions and the final one (solid red with a black top) into the Walter P. Chrylser Museum to sit right next to the first one. Scott

But remember - it's still WAY better than any Cavalier! As far as consideration, here's all of the "sports compacts" available in the $20-25K range: Chevrolet Cobalt SS Dodge Caliber SRT-4 Honda Civic Si Hyundai Tiburon GT V6 Mazda Mazdaspeed3 Mini Cooper S Mitsubishi Eclipse GT V6 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart Nissan Sentra SE-R (Spec V) Volkswagen GTI Volkswagen GLI Volvo C30 And, of course, if practicality isn't a concern and maximum fun is: Mazda MX-5. Of that list, I'd drive the C30, Speed3, GTI, Cooper S, & maybe the Sentra. But I'd almost assuredly buy the Speed3. Good luck with the shopping! Scott

I know next to nothing about the commercial vehicle market. Looking at Ford's commercial vehicle website, the E-Series & F-Series cutaways overlap a large part of the market. Why is that? Is there a reason to choose one over the other? Is there a reason to have two models instead of one? But, with that in mind, here are the numbers I found for the Transit & the E-Series. The Transit numbers are from www.ford.co.uk and converted from kg to lbs. GVM - Gross Vehicle Mass GVWR - Gross Vehicle Weight Rating GP - Gross Payload (I couldn't find for the US models) DRW - Dual Rear Wheels SRW - Single Rear Wheel Transit 350L GVM -- 7700lbs --- GP - 4121lbs Transit 460M DRW GVM -- 9350lbs --- GP - 6094lbs E-250 Cutaway GVWR - 8600lbs E-350 SRW Cutaway GVWR - 9500lbs E-350 DRW Cutaway GVWR - 12500lbs E-450 Cutaway GVWR - 14500lbs F-350 Chassis GVWR - 13000lbs F-450 Chassis GVWR - 16500lbs So, looking just at the numbers, it appears that the Transit could replace the lower E-250/-350 models and the F-350/-450 could replace the higher E-350/-450 series. That doesn't seem like an awful exchange. But, like I said, I know nothing of the actual market. Is there a reason that this information is not right? Scott

With a wild stab in the dark, going conservative and using these numbers: 2.0L EB - 280hp - 140hp/L 3.5L EB - 340hp - ~100hp/L ...a 1.0L EB 4cyl should produce roughly 100-140hp. That's plenty for an entry-level more special "high-mileage" Focus. Scott

This is all well and good - but the blog posting is about a possibility in 2013. Fuel-efficient trucks are needed now. Scott

Yes, it would be more fun with more power. However, remember that in the UK they're paying roughly $9/gal right now. If our gasoline doubled (yet again) I bet 116hp would seem like too much! It was interesting when I was in the UK last year I had a 1.2L Corsa rental - and it was slow. But it was perfectly happy to spin it's little motor to make the most of the available power. And downshifting to climb hills is actually kinda fun - it makes you feel more involved. At the end of the day - with only 70hp - it averaged more than 40mpg. Not too shabby if you ask me. And anyway - these specs are for the European models anyway. Hasn't it been "confirmed" that "our" Fiesta is coming with the 2.0L SPI engine from the old Escort? 2.0L 4cyl 8v SOHC ~110hp? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Scott

I wonder what role cost is going to take in determining the outcome of the next F-150/Silverado race. For a long time, especially after the 2004 F-150 redo, the Silverado was significantly cheaper to build than the F-150. Chevy took advantage of that and undercut Ford on pricing to gain sales. With the new F-150 seemingly more expensive to build than the current F-150, will Chevy still be able to undercut Ford pricing? Will that have an effect on Ford maintaining marketshare with the new F-150? Scott

I hate to dredge up old threads, but I never responded to this: Thanks "theoldwizard" for finding an answer. M.R. - I agree that electrically-driven a/c would cause the engine to run more than I'd like - however - if the engine is *ever* off, that's more than it'd be off in the current setup. Because you simply CANNOT have the a/c turn off while you're sitting at a light. If the switch to electrically-driven a/c means that the engine could only stop for, say, a quarter of the "stops" in traffic that's still a quarter more than the current engine-driven system allows for. I do know a Prius owner here in AZ that specifically purchased the Prius for the electrically-driven a/c feature (not that she stated it that way - but she preferred the Escape but drove it and couldn't handle the a/c off or engine-running scenario. She ended up with a Prius and insists that it turns off at almost every light. I can't verify that, but that's the claim. "Valley of the Sun" - ya gotta love it! Scott

Yes, true, however, when will the rebadges be available? What is Nissan going to do with their brand-new plant in Mississippi? What about Quest & Armada? Does a rebadged Chrysler even make sense for Nissan? I'd say that Nissan has a pretty darn good truck available right now, with plenty of financing and cash offers to make it attractive. And yet they still can't get them on the road. The current Ram is older and slower than the Titan yet it hasn't seen the implosion of sales the Nissan has suffered. I think the point is that when trucks are out-of-style (like they are now) it doesn't make much sense for an "extra" player like Nissan to even compete in this market. I don't see a profitable avenue for Nissan - even a rebadge. Just abandon the market and spend more money on the cars - like Sentra, Versa, & Altima. That is a good thing. I think the new F-150 will help the marketshare battle, but it's never good launching a brand new vehicle into an apathetic market. Using selling-day adjusted volume numbers isn't that unique, but I try to post all of the numbers in the same format for ease-of-reading. Unfortunately I didn't catch Toyota's numbers until after I posted this thread. The other sales threads should have estimates instead. Sorry. Scott

Well, the month that was. Model - June 08 - June 07 - % gain/(% loss) F-Series - 38,789 - 65,156 - (40.5%) Mark LT - 405 - 756 - (46.4%) Silverado - 34,290 - 44,955 - (23.7%) Avalanche - 2,649 - 4,327 - (36.8%) Sierra - 12,409 - 15,187 - (18.3%) Escalade EXT - 399 - 601 - (33.6%) Ram - 16,149 - 31,114 - (48%) Tundra - 10,238 - 21,727 - (47.0%) Titan - 1,260 - 4,405 - (71.4%) Well, Ford was only the second largest loser this month. With employee pricing their decline was less than Toyota, Dodge, and Nissan's. I wonder what incentives GM was offering this month to keep their trucks moving. They had an impressively low decline year-over-year, considering the competition. Nissan, on the other hand, must be incredibly worried. This fall they'll have the oldest truck on the market. In a declining market the weakest player feels the pain first. What will Nissan do? Scott

Wow. Pages and pages of a topic that was "solved" more than three years ago. Interesting. My question is more basic: is this "v1.5" Ford system hybrid still using an engine-driven Air Conditioning compressor, or have they switched to an electrically-driven A/C compressor? As a Floridian-cum-Arizonan I need to run the A/C all the time for months on end. The 2nd gen Prius (and I think all Toyota hybrids) use an electrically-driven A/C compressor so that the engine can shut down at stoplights and still maintain cabin cooling by running the A/C from the battery. The Ford system, however, either shuts the A/C off at stoplights or requires the engine to be running to keep the A/C on. Keeping the engine running while stopped in traffic kinda defeats the whole purpose of a hybrid in the first place and has been a roadblock to me even considering a hybrid Escape since it debuted. Anyone know? And, if not, will the Fusion hybrid incorporate this design when it debuts Ford's "v2.0" hybrid system next year? Scott

I haven't done one of these posts in awhile due to time constraints, but seeing the 88% increase in Focus sales I was simply too curious to pass up the opportunity. Focus - 23,850 (+43.5%) ...the 88% increase is retail, of course, while the 43.5% number is total sold including fleet. Mazda3 - 9,234 (+14.8%) ...remember the C1 is too expensive to sell in the U.S..... Cobalt - 18,636 (+25.1%) G5 - 2,030 (+10.5%) Astra - 909 (new) Caliber - 8,825 (-5%) Patriot - 6,348 (+119%) Compass - 2,804 (-13%) Civic - ???? ...unreported due to technical glitch with Honda's reporting tools. Fit - ???? ...unreported due to technical glitch with Honda's reporting tools. Corolla - 32,435 (-7.3%) ...must be the '08/'09 cutover. Yaris - 11,434 (+45.9%) xB - 4,220 (+232.1%) ...low supply in April '07 xD - 2,913 (new) ...roughly +100% over xA sales in April '07, again, supply constrained in April '07. Sentra - 8,842 (+25.5%) Versa - 6,865 (+26.4%) Elantra - 9,981 (+22%) Spectra - 8,406 (+16.7%) Rio - 4,052 (+23.6%) Impreza - 4,010 (+16%) Lancer - 2,598 (?%) VW Rabbit - 1,809 (-6.4%) VW Jetta - 7,171 (-12.9%) Mini - 4,713 (+39.4%) ...Assuming strong Civic sales (guaranteed) the Focus ends the month with a respectable third place showing. Better than combined G5/Cobalt sales in fourth place. Across the board small cars are building steam. And Focus is certainly doing its part for Ford. I have to believe that the Focus's sales results are better than even the rosiest forecasts used last year. It's amazing what sanity $4/gal fuel brings to the car market. Scott

To the topic at hand: the 2009 Mazda6. I bought a brand-new, first-year-of-production 2003 Mazda6s - the s model with the 220hp V6 & 5-speed manual transmission. And I bought it straight off the truck, still plastic wrapped. I had to get rid of it for other reasons two years ago, but it still holds a very dear place in my heart. When I bought my 2003 Mazda6 I didn't really need a midsize sedan, but the 6 offered a package that was tempting: a decent interior and refined manners (both lacking in the Altima), a taut yet refined exterior design (far better than the chunky Accord), and sporting performance - emphasized with the V6/manual combo. I still don't need a midsize sedan and I will be in no hurry to purchase this new Mazda6. With this update, Mazda has broken two of it's core Zoom-Zoom keys that have delivered time-and-time again for Mazda: smaller/lighter and the joy of driving. Whereas the original 6 was just slightly smaller all around than the competitors still offering a roomy interior but keeping the size down to improve the fun-to-drive quotient via lighter weight, this new 6 is as big as every other midsize - still no advantage as it only matches - it doesn't exceed. Especially useless to those who don't need all of the space of a "full-size" midsize sedan. And the lack of a V6/manual is simply an inexcusable assault on Mazda's "joy of driving" credo. In it's first year of production, Mazda so badly underforecasted V6/manual demand that it was reported some dealers were able to charge markups on V6/manual models. And even for those purchasers who chose the automatic models, the V6/manual performance image created a halo for the entire Mazda6 brand. Without the sporting halo what is the new Mazda6? Just another midsize. And why would one look at a car with worse resale, lower projected reliability, and a smaller dealer network when I can buy an equivalent Honda, Toyota, or Nissan down the block? Mazda's been there before - 1998. The successful-but-low-volumed-compared-to-Honda-and-Toyota Mazda 626 was replaced by a larger, tamer, more Honda/Toyota-ish 626. And by the time it was replaced in 2002 it had fallen completely off the radar screens of nearly all new car shoppers. I understand Mazda's motivation for once again Toyota-izing their midsize product. But I still wonder why no one at Mazda understands the reason the last Mazda6 actually sold. It sold because it was different: because you could get a V6/manual, because it was a bit smaller, because it was taut and understated. Instead, Mazda ignored why the 6 sold and focused on why it didn't sell. And the answer boils down to this: the 6 isn't and never will be an Accord or Camry. They've set out, once again, to "correct" that problem and I think they've ended up with a bigger problem - a fine car with no identity. Scott

I hope every one of the "extra" vehicles they produce comes with Sync. That's a hot product for Ford. The Focus...well - it's selling. I'd like to say that Ford is lucky, but there is definitely an interesting link between car companies and the compacts they sell. Everyone knows the Corolla is a decent vehicle, but it's hardly class-leading - yet its sales are phenomenal. The Cavalier was a MISERABLE car - yet it sold incredibly well. I wonder if the compact cars offered by a car company sells more based on the reputation of the company offering it than based on the product itself. i.e. "Toyota's are reliable, therefore the Corolla is reliable." or, "Ford's are safe, therefore the Focus is safe." But absent the psychological aspects of it all - the fact remains, Ford is selling more Focuses than predicted and that is ALWAYS a good thing! Scott

Remember, when Saturn launched it was riding a unique chassis with a unique powertrain - I don't know if a single component was shared with any other GM product. The problem was (and still is) why make two world-class designs? It's too expensive to do it twice - just do it once and then copy it. And GM's problem was they didn't have the money/wherewithall to do ONE world-class design, so instead they put out two mediocre designs. Because of the duplication of effort, Saturn HAD to be brought into the GM stable - the parts sharing had to exist. The problem was GM didn't share world-class parts, they shared mediocre parts - lousy interiors on the Saturns, the underwhelming Delta chassis for Ion/Cobalt, the "eh" Ecotec four cylinders, etc. If GM had brought Saturn into the fold and stepped up the game with Corolla-and-Civic-beating compacts for Saturn & Chevy it would be a completely different story. But that's talking about the investment. Saturn dealers still have a reputation for being a "cut above" - that'd probably be the hardest thing to lose for GM. For example, last fall my dear, sweet 72-year old Great Aunt needed to buy a new car to replace her problematic Chrysler minivan - no family lives nearby, so I did my best over the phone to steer her in a "safe" direction so that she wouldn't get swindled. Where did I send her? To the Saturn dealer! And now she loves her pretty little Aura. But if they didn't have good dealers (and screaming deals on the slow selling cars) I would never have recommended a Saturn. I agree. Ford (Mulally, that is) knows where he needs to improve - that's the Ford brand. That's where the marketing dollars are going, that's where the product is going. GM? Well, Chevy needs to refocus on its core products - the high volume sedans & trucks - therefore they get the Malibu & Silverado. Buick needs something, anything, to keep it alive - it gets a rebadged Cadillac chassis, an '80s holdover sedan, and a swoopy new crossover. Cadillac gets the money needed for a serious overhaul. Saturn gets a lineup full of rebadges - not bad cars, but cars that required virtually no engineering expenses to develop...they've become a marketing brand only - but without marketing funding. Pontiac gets a hodgepodge of vehicles to keep the history/legend alive and to keep the volume up. It's a mess. Ford = Ford is infinitely simpler to "fix" than GM = Chevy, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, etc. Scott

Yeah, but "boutique" means getting rid of the rebadged Aura, W-body Buicks, plain-jane G6s, etc. Pontiac is, I believe, still GM's second biggest selling brand behind Chevrolet. Being a boutique brand means that quality, substance, and positioning are more important than volume. GM is trying to "refocus" it's brands, I'm advocating switching to boutique, low volume, specialized brands. It's a difference. It may seem like a subtle change, but there is a significant difference between the two. Scott

I think the problem for Saturn is marketing - or the lack thereof. Without the funding for a serious ad campaign, they don't have the ability to tell consumers about their lineup of cars. The problem for GM becomes - throw money at Saturn marketing for, what, an extra 100K/volume a year? And what becomes of Buick, Pontiac, Chevy, GMC, Cadillac, and Saab? Oh, and Hummer? I can envision GM with maybe four or five refocused brands. Chevy as the volume leader, Cadillac as the Buick/Cadillac luxury volume brand and then a mix of "boutique" brands. My boutique candidates: Saturn could be a boutique "European"-like brand - a differentiated from the rebadged American models with European-like grilles & headlights. More VW-like. Problem: even VW can't sell "euro" vehicles here. Hummer - selling hardcore off-road vehicles - like Jeep was before the SUV craze in the late 90s. Problem: hard-core off-road is low volume but high-engineering. And do that many people care? Especially with $3-4/gal gasoline? GMC - exiting the passenger car business and moving only to commercial vehicles. Trucks are Chevy; ambulances, tow trucks, moving vans are all GMC. GMC/Hummer - merging the two brands as a truck/off-road brand only. The heavy-duty brand. Buick - selling, in low-volumes, the cars that sell well in China. Dependent on the Chinese market supporting high-end enough vehicles to justify the Buick brand (which looks likely at this point.) We'd get the Park Avenue and the cool new sporty two-door concept...and not much else. Pontiac - a sporting-only brand. Every model available with a manual transmission, super- or turbo-charged or V8 engines, and serious sporting credentials. A lightened Solstice, RWD Solstice-based "G5" compact, the G8, and a GTO. GM's BMW/Mazda fighting brand. Saab. Does anyone really care any more? Or, better put, does anyone really believe that GM has ANY idea on how to make Saab a relevant brand? Was Saab ever a relevant brand in the first place? So, pick any two or three brands above to compliment the Chevy & Cadillac brands. I could see it working. Scott

I was going to ask if this was debuting on the W chassis, but I thought that might be rude. Apparently this is the US debut for the Epsilon II chassis. Without getting into a discussion on the wisdom of that, I will just add that this needs to be compared with the MKZ, not the MKS. It's going to be much smaller and (likely) much cheaper than an MKS. The body profile is much chunkier than the existing 1988-era LaCrosse (there I go again...) and the lines appear to be much more modern and in keeping with the Enclave. The interior...well, it's got style, yes. But, from the distance, it appears to border on "overdone." But, either way, the new car will be a vast improvement over the exisitng model. And on every young Quebecois' mind, will the "tosser" receive a new name? Scott

I still really like it - it slots well ahead of the Aveo/Yaris/xA competition and lines up squarely against the (reigning b-market champs) Fit & Versa. My only complaint: drop the silly NA-only 4-door and give us the 5-door notchback version. Much better. Any word on powerplant? I remember a couple of months ago Igor (I think) posted that it was using the old Escort 2.0L SPI engine (again, I think.) I hope they drop that for the MZR 1.8L. A much better choice for everyone involved - minus Ford's bottom line. Scott

For the first time (in a long while) AZ is just about the cheapest place in the nation. The two closest stations to my house: $3.079 and $3.019 for 87 octane. No idea about diesel. (I know I'm not contributing to the real discussion, I'm just "gloating" about our fuel prices...) Scott