gobbletwo Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Buickman (no link provided by me) seems to have a pretty good handle on what's wrong with our domestic automobile industry.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radius Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 All they need to do is use the "Best in Class" approach. Who is gaining market share in this segment and make it better. Like: - Competitive, if not aggressive styling – NOT RETRO - Four Wheel independent suspension with great handling (they did it on the LS) - 300/350+ HP option – with the ability to have cylinders turned off for better economy - 6 speed transmission - Competitive interiors - Body on frame makes it more rugged and long lasting, so might be worth keeping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 All they need to do is use the "Best in Class" approach. Who is gaining market share in this segment and make it better. Like: - Competitive, if not aggressive styling – NOT RETRO - Four Wheel independent suspension with great handling (they did it on the LS) - 300/350+ HP option – with the ability to have cylinders turned off for better economy - 6 speed transmission - Competitive interiors - Body on frame makes it more rugged and long lasting, so might be worth keeping. How much more do you think they can charge for the cars? Your suggestions will add cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radius Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 How much more do you think they can charge for the cars? Your suggestions will add cost. Takes money to make money. Do you think the competitiors that are winning maket share are just selling warmed over product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 I'd like to see the 3V 4.6 in it. I still don't think it needs IRS, though. But that seems to be what people want, whether they actually need it or not. It's sort of like HDTV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 I'd like to see the 3V 4.6 in it. I still don't think it needs IRS, though. But that seems to be what people want, whether they actually need it or not. It's sort of like HDTV. I've been a proponent of IRS for a very long time ( 10 years ) on the "panthers". NOT because I like the idea, but because of necessity. I'd like heftier towing first ( 8000lbs ) and I'd like a much bigger gas tank ( 29 gallons ), and with recent rear enders, something needs to be done back there to up impact protection to 120MPH ( yes that can easily be done ). Puting all that together, in an efficient space without losing ( maybe gaining ) trunk space dictates IRS. Wanna tell me Ford engineers are goofs, and will screw up the design of an IRS? You could be right! Getting SRA reliability out of IRS takes some work. But not a lot. Really, all they need to add is active pressure lube of wheel bearings ( rotation of differential could provide that ) and I figure most IRS bogeymen will dissappear. As for 3V over 4V. Thats even simpler. 4V has been around and PROVEN for over 10 years. 3V has not and has a few gotchas showing up already. As for price, losing to the competition ( who have larger displacement truck engines with DOHC4V heads ) is a lot more costly than the claimed price of 4V heads. Go to the KarKraft link on htis board and price a domestic 4.6L4V over a 3 or 2V and see how trivial that issue really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Wanna tell me Ford engineers are goofs, and will screw up the design of an IRS? You could be right! Getting SRA reliability out of IRS takes some work. But not a lot. Really, all they need to add is active pressure lube of wheel bearings ( rotation of differential could provide that ) and I figure most IRS bogeymen will dissappear. Sys buddy give your head a shake diff pressurized live oil feed bearings. KISS buddy KISS. I,m sure that set up would work good at -30C..... NOT. Ever seen what gear lube looks like at -30C including synthetics, the term " tar" should give ya an idea. The single biggest and only probelm with the CV and the GM preventing it from becomming a sales star is a body styling and interior that is 14 YEARS OLD. Fixing that will solve 80% of the sales issues alone. The rest are minor tweeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Sys buddy give your head a shake diff pressurized live oil feed bearings. KISS buddy KISS.I,m sure that set up would work good at -30C..... NOT. Ever seen what gear lube looks like at -30C including synthetics, the term " tar" should give ya an idea. The single biggest and only probelm with the CV and the GM preventing it from becomming a sales star is a body styling and interior that is 14 YEARS OLD. Fixing that will solve 80% of the sales issues alone. The rest are minor tweeks. KISS? Of course! Pressure would come from grooves on the rim of the ring gear, and on the inner shaft of the wheel bearing. A glorified slush pump at both ends. Now THATs KISS. Not to mention something similar is done on those faulty "panther" SRAs. Pumping "tar" ( or grease ) isn't out of the question you know. As for minor tweeks, wanna start with B. Fords head??? Whats this deleting remote locking fuel ports on the '06 about :angry: ? Option stripping may be a fad in Detroit ( and apparently Tokyo ), but it seems the Koreans have yet to hear of it. Until they do, losing sales is a very real option! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Hmmm. The new styling sounds attractive, until I think of what GM did with my Caprices. Owned three 77-89 Caprices, and loved them. Then came that ugly round thing in '90- yikes! I knew we were in it deep when I saw a pre-production version in Warren two years before it was introduced. The factory guys were pretty jazzed about the design, but us stoopid dealers and sales managers could just shake our heads and wonder privately "what were they thinking?" And IRS- can Ford actually build a quiet one? If they could get that figured out, I might even be game. My own opinion- the GM's interior needs the most work. Powertrain is adaquate for it's mission in life- although I wouldn't stop anyone if they wanted to put a blower on it. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIAMI-DADE Posted December 18, 2005 Share Posted December 18, 2005 Hmmm. The new styling sounds attractive, until I think of what GM did with my Caprices. Owned three 77-89 Caprices, and loved them. Then came that ugly round thing in '90- yikes! I knew we were in it deep when I saw a pre-production version in Warren two years before it was introduced. The factory guys were pretty jazzed about the design, but us stoopid dealers and sales managers could just shake our heads and wonder privately "what were they thinking?" The Caprice was the best selling car on the market for years.I owned a couple of them in the 70's.It had great engine and nice looks.The car ran like a top with no problems for way over 100k miles.Plus that was with finicky carborater that most peope had to have ajusted ten million times a year in most other makes except the Caprice. Yeah when the 91 Caprice came out i 2 knew it was doomed.What were the people of GENERAL MORANS thinking?I can only hope those people responsible were fired! General Morans hasn't been right since and i haven't bought a GM car since and at this point don't ever indend 2.I talked all of my family members out of buying a GM car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolarBear Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Yeah when the 91 Caprice came out i 2 knew it was doomed.What were the people of GENERAL MORANS thinking?I can only hope those people responsible were fired! I'm pretty sure the guy that not only headed the B-Body program, but shoved it in front of the new Blazer (which we deperately needed) was promoted to CEO of GM. Which explains one heckuva lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIAMI-DADE Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 (edited) I'm pretty sure the guy that not only headed the B-Body program, but shoved it in front of the new Blazer (which we deperately needed) was promoted to CEO of GM. Which explains one heckuva lot. Your most likely right. Edited December 21, 2005 by MIAMI-DADE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbletwo Posted December 28, 2005 Author Share Posted December 28, 2005 Sound familiar...............? This from Buickman this morning... ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gas Mask GENERAL WATCH NEWS In October General Motors ran a promotion for Free Gas with the delivery of eligible vehicles. Dealers were instructed to inform prospects that a $500 debit card would be issued by mid November and mailed directly to the customer. By the beginning of December, dealers who were now receiving irate phone calls from customers still without their Free Gas, were led to believe the cards would go out by mid month. Now we are told that customers will soon be receiving a letter from GM that the gas cards are on the way. First of all, exactly how satisfied do you suppose these people are with their delivery? Who suffers most on the satisfaction surveys? Who takes the heat from untold numbers of disgruntled owners? Even more ridiculous, how much money is GM wasting on postage by sending all these people letters, instead of just sending the cards? Perhaps there is a relationship with the same printing company that distributed all those absolutely worthless Red Tags. General Watch.com www.GeneralWatch.com ---------------------------------------------------------- :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbletwo Posted January 3, 2006 Author Share Posted January 3, 2006 It seems the CV is not in NY's picture for 06&07... The bid spec's are only for the Wimp. & the Charger..WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I've been a proponent of IRS for a very long time ( 10 years ) on the "panthers". NOT because I like the idea, but because of necessity. I'd like heftier towing first ( 8000lbs ) and I'd like a much bigger gas tank ( 29 gallons ), and with recent rear enders, something needs to be done back there to up impact protection to 120MPH ( yes that can easily be done ). Puting all that together, in an efficient space without losing ( maybe gaining ) trunk space dictates IRS. Wanna tell me Ford engineers are goofs, and will screw up the design of an IRS? You could be right! Getting SRA reliability out of IRS takes some work. But not a lot. Really, all they need to add is active pressure lube of wheel bearings ( rotation of differential could provide that ) and I figure most IRS bogeymen will dissappear. As for 3V over 4V. Thats even simpler. 4V has been around and PROVEN for over 10 years. 3V has not and has a few gotchas showing up already. As for price, losing to the competition ( who have larger displacement truck engines with DOHC4V heads ) is a lot more costly than the claimed price of 4V heads. Go to the KarKraft link on htis board and price a domestic 4.6L4V over a 3 or 2V and see how trivial that issue really is. Ford has the tooling in place to make the 3-valve, would be a big job to switch to 4v. Chrysler and GM are doing quite well with 2-valve heads with the DOD for their truck engines. Is Ford having problems with the 3-valve engines? I never heard of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaSVT Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I've been a proponent of IRS for a very long time ( 10 years ) on the "panthers". NOT because I like the idea, but because of necessity. I'd like heftier towing first ( 8000lbs ) and I'd like a much bigger gas tank ( 29 gallons ), and with recent rear enders, something needs to be done back there to up impact protection to 120MPH ( yes that can easily be done ). Puting all that together, in an efficient space without losing ( maybe gaining ) trunk space dictates IRS. Wanna tell me Ford engineers are goofs, and will screw up the design of an IRS? You could be right! Getting SRA reliability out of IRS takes some work. But not a lot. Really, all they need to add is active pressure lube of wheel bearings ( rotation of differential could provide that ) and I figure most IRS bogeymen will dissappear. Isn't a IRS weaker than a SRA? Would a IRS handle towing upwards of 8000lbs? Look at the '04 SVT Cobra with IRS. If you 'tweak' the engine too much, bye bye IRS. I have no problem with the SRA on my Marauder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Isn't a IRS weaker than a SRA? Would a IRS handle towing upwards of 8000lbs? Expy went IRS and tow rating went up. Like anything else, it ain't always what you got, but it is always how you use it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96towncarcartier Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 JUST WAIT until these stupid unibody things start getting rear ended at high speeds..... I dont even want to think what the bodies will look like.... HAMBURGER. It seems the CV is not in NY's picture for 06&07... The bid spec's are only for the Wimp. & the Charger..WTF Isn't a IRS weaker than a SRA? Would a IRS handle towing upwards of 8000lbs? Look at the '04 SVT Cobra with IRS. If you 'tweak' the engine too much, bye bye IRS. I have no problem with the SRA on my Marauder. THe engineers looked at it and said that the benefits of IRA do not outweight the cost. SO it's better to just tweak the live axle and keep it than raise the costs for an IRA. I had an IRA in my 95 Thunderbird, but always had CV's too. To me, I love the standard axle. Less parts to break and go bad. (not that the Bird ever gave me trouble. I miss that car) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SysEng Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 THe engineers looked at it and said that the benefits of IRA do not outweight the cost. SO it's better to just tweak the live axle and keep it than raise the costs for an IRA. LOL :lol: , I get it, the cost of losing their jobs isn't an issue :blink: I guess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.