esevans

But even if they knew, would they really care? People may be starting to look at Ford again (quality), but when the G8 came out, I doubt GM was on many peoples radars other than trucks/SUV's. Most people just want a cheap dependable car. Whether or not it's dull, makes not much difference to those people. If they wanted the G8 to sell, they had to have an entry level version. There are just not enough people who really care about having a V8 RWD sedan to sell in decent numbers and make a good profit for a non-luxury manufacturer.

Just compared apples to apples. Cheapest way into a scab 4x4 ranger with 4 doors, had to upgrade to V6, but kept the manual was $25625 Cheapest way into a scab 4x4 f150, base engine V8 (no V6), base automatic (no manual) was $30005 Both were strippers with no options. I would have to have the Scab 4x4 at a minimum if I were buying. the f150 starts to look rather attractive at a $4400 difference, considering more capability + V8 and automatic for only a 1 mpg penalty. I'm sure the price would be a consideration for some, but at that price difference, other things would come into play for me. I really don't like cruising parking lots in my f150, and I have to stand on the tire to reach into my bed from the side (toolboxes mounted all around). On the other hand, if I tried to mount toolboxes to a ranger, the bed would be next to useless for anything larger than a shop-vac. The times I would want to tow my larger trailers, the ranger would struggle. As long as the price of a ranger gets close to f150 territory, without real advantages from its smaller size, the f150 will be picked by quite a few over the ranger. I wish the ranger had some real advantages, but it doesn't. I think the price difference is more or less a wash considering the capabilities gained (if I couldn't swing the $4400 I would start looking at used f150's). Having to go with the poor mpg 6 in more or less anything other than a reg cab (Scabs without doors became useless when they added door functionality) kills the deal.

I really don't understand what the problem is with the Explorer's lack of off-road ability. Who really buys these things new in order to throw them on the trails, dunes, mud whatever? The only people I know who would take a brand new vehicle and give it some real off-road abuse are people who use them for work. Were I inclined to get into off-roading, I would buy a new F150. I would then proceed to take my old F150 off-roading. I think most complaints are from people who would really like the new Explorer off-road a few years from now, when they are bought used. In other words, fanboys who don't do much for the bottom line of any company, other than possibly swaying the opinions of actual new car buyers. The new Explorer will be a good choice for 95% of the people who want an SUV.

unfortunately, by the time i can afford a particular corvette to add to my stable of worn out junk, it too is worn out. otherwise, i'd gladly take most any corvette in good condition from most any year and be pleased. that's one car i intend to have an example of while i can still enjoy it. if that makes me un-american then i guess i need to double check my birth certificate.

the explorer's main purpose in life for the last couple decades, has been a grocery getter, lightweight offroading vehicle. if you really needed to tow something heavy on a regular basis, you went to a larger vehicle. when your excursion needs replacement, i suggest you do a nationwide search for a nice low mileage example, because until fossil fuels get cheap and stay cheap for an extended period (at least several years), those types of vehicles are through. and i'd love to have one, but couldn't realistically afford one as my main ride. the new explorer looks like just what the doctor ordered for 95% of previous explorer owners imo.

that was truly ridiculous. chevy had the "advantage" whether or not they had the best numbers, or even if it was a totally subjective comparison.

Give me a break. You want doctors to completely opt out of Obamacare and go fee-for-service? Welcome to the world of Doctors as Dentists, where they open Monday thru Thursday, no late hours, no emergency hours, and waiting lists to get on a waiting list to be a patient (if they are taking new patients at all). Medical schools can churn out more doctors. I don't know the statistics, but I seriously doubt there are people who really want to be a doctor, who are intelligent enough to be a doctor, who have they skills to be a doctor, who decide not to be a doctor because of Obamacare. Obamacare may give them pause, and they may have time to reconsider their career choice while they are on a waiting list to get into medical school. As for 60 doctor owned hospitals? Where were these hospitals to be built? A small town, medium size city, large city? I doubt any doctor owned hospitals were planned for any metro areas, how could they afford to take the risk in building one when all you hear is how they struggle with insurance, medicaid, medicare, etc. etc. I can only imagine the financial risk involved in building a hospital. The only time I could see a doctor owned hospital being constructed now would be in a rural area, and the term hospital would probably be used loosely. More like a really nice clinic. If were to be any doctor-built hospitals in an area with 50K + population that will not be built now, and will leave the population without adequate health care because of a change in the law due to Obamacare, I will gladly admit that could be a problem. As it is now, we already have universal health care, and have had it for as long as I can remember. When Joe Blow gets sick he goes to the ER. Joe Blow isn't sitting at home nursing his own injuries because he doesn't have insurance. He's already on the 20 dollar a month plan. Who pays when he doesn't have insurance? We all do in the form of higher costs. Obamacare will likely add to those costs. However, I suspect most of the added costs will come from bureaucrats and the medical profession lining their pockets, not from incremental costs in the form of people going to the doctor when they wouldn't have previously. As for the story itself, from World Correspondents, I wouldn't expect too much in the way of actual news reporting. More like a group blog with just authors opinions, plus a quote from the head of a trade group (no trade group ever had their own agenda). This can't be your main source of news, I mean you're on the internets.

given the choice between a 97 f150 and a c1500, I'll take a 99 f150 simply because of a more attractive front end treatment. also, in general all work trucks are ugly by nature (stripped down, plain jane). I have a 99 and a 00 f150, both ext cab 4x4 xlts. 1 has >140k mi, other @120k, with only very minor issues on either. the biggest problems either has had was caused by misuse by a previous owner. I suspect a large number of trucks and suv's traded in had been relegated to second vehicle status. Probably alot of people had a truck as a second vehicle for errands, towing, etc., maybe didn't use them much, and figured the CARS program was a good way to get more for it than it was worth, plus who knows what gas prices will do in the future.