Edstock Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Context of time. Ford wasn't in a financial position to do a US Transit in 2006, so the discussion should be off the table. Like, duh? Glad Ford wasn't in a position to do it. Spend all the millions, just in time for the 2K8 financial melt-down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Like, duh? Glad Ford wasn't in a position to do it. Spend all the millions, just in time for the 2K8 financial melt-down. You and I know that, I was simply reminding others here that Ford was in a very different place in 2006, it already had a huge cash burn happening with restructuring and removing production capacity and employees and I remember a gas spike before the financial crisis where everyone threw away their life style Trucks/SUVs and sent F Series sales down to 30,000 - that scared Ford into thinking it was seeing permanent die back in F150 sales. Edited June 16, 2014 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Context of time. Ford wasn't in a financial position to do a US Transit in 2006, so the discussion should be off the table. Spending cash to rip up the E-series line would have imperiled Ford even more than it already was. Suggesting otherwise is grossly revisionist and flies in the face of financial reality. Sure didn't seem to hurt them waiting to switch either. E-series continued to outsell Sprinter by leaps and bounds over that entire span. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Yep, look who was right all along. 40mpg is your new combined rating now. And you are and educated hot shot engineer that is far above the rest of us mortals. Guess us mortals are not as stupid as you think we are are. There is no disputing the new numbers since the EPA audit and even Ford agrees with them. 7 mpg is massive! How do account for that? Case closed. No you are as stupid as I believe you are. I stated previously why I believe that and nothing you have stated changes my opinion of that. We have had our C-Max for almost 2 years now and are averaging better than 47. We drive it like a hybrid and it gives us what we expected. I believe Ford did make a mistake vs Toyota by making the C-Max tooo powerful thus giving the customer the option to get lesser mileage by driving tooooooo hard and thus getting less mileage. Ford should take out about 50 HP and then the typical customer would have the MPG I get by driving the speed limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I am glad you are happy with your C-max. I guess you think this is the consumers fault that Ford has had to revise the fuel mileage ratings not once but twice on the C-max? I guess I was right all along about questioning why the majority of folks could not achieve the mighty 47/47/47 on the sticker. You are the exception and not the rule. I can exceed the epa sticker ratings on my Mustang and old Gmc pickup if I really really try. But I dont try and I run the A/c at will and just drive them normally most of the time. I dont drive them like I am trying to save the planet and I get without fail pretty much what was on the stickers at the time of purchase. The vast majority on fuelly right now are averaging 40 and the revised combined rating from Ford is now 40 on the C-max. They finally have had to tell the truth. Yes, there can be wild swings with hybrids. I am glad you are happy with yours. I am going to burn as much gasoline and rubber as I can afford before I leave this earth. You are correct that I have never had the opportunity to drive a C-max nor an EB engine for any lengh of time but if I did I would expect them to deliever basically the same results as my 96 gmc and my Mustang givin my driving habits over the last 35 years. Ford has really got caught up in a mess here. If you want to blame me go ahead. I dont care. This is a company I have always loved but I really dont trust them. They dig in deep on something like the EB engines or hybrids and then find out they dont deliver and find some loop hole to get out of it. Seen it too many times. They will never admit to a poor design or poorly engineered product. Instead, they keep trying to fix something that is not fixable. It just pisses me off and I will never trust them. If you read my post I said Ford did screw up. They made it too powerful thinking the customer would be intelligent enough to understand that if you drive the car like a hybrid you could and would get the EPA est, But then you are not one of the intelligent drivers are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Having too much power also does not change the EPA mileage tests. It changes personal mileage based on driving habits. Ford is only responsible for one of those. If only chevys could understand this simple concept...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) I picked every single post of yours and mine from the 1st page of that thread, every single one. The E-series is being replaced by the transit and listening to the Reviews I was right to say it should have been done 8 year ago. I quote this to prove you have history of being wrong. 1) You did not quote every single post, just posts from the first page. You didn't post quotes from additional pages, because that context didn't help your case: Why would you wreck the space efficient Transit by cramming a huge V8 into it that its home market does not want? Why would you reinforce the Transit to add another three tons of GCWR, when its home market does not want that much capability? Why would you demand that E-Series body builders adapt to the thoroughly different Transit architecture and offer them no increase in GCWR, GVWR, or durability? I mean you're asking them to spend millions on tooling and R&D in order to keep offering the same stuff they've been offering. 1) the EU market does not WANT a big V8, therefore bastardizing the Transit to hold the 6.0L PSD or the 4.4L Lion constitutes a degradation of the vehicle for its primary market in order to make it palatable for a secondary market. If this makes even an ounce of sense to you, you belong lumped in with mlhm5, TStag, Ford?-LOL! and a whole host of people who are bent on seeing only what they want to see. 2) the Transit is by no means whatsoever a valid starting point for a vehicle with a greater GCWR & GVWR than the E-Series, as the E-450 already carries a 5,700lb advantage in GCWR. etc.... 2) Why should Ford have spent money refitting KCAP 8 years ago, when they needed to fix the roughly 1M units of volume represented by C, CD and D sedans and crossovers? That's like saying, "Oh, I have a headache. Give me an aspirin." "Mr. Biker, your femoral artery has been severed and you're at risk of bleeding out." "I don't care. My head hurts. Give me an aspirin." 3) You quote this, and include an out-of-context quote in your signature because you are obsessed with me, and frankly, it's a bit creepy. Edited June 16, 2014 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4d4evr-1 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I am glad you are happy with your C-max. I guess you think this is the consumers fault that Ford has had to revise the fuel mileage ratings not once but twice on the C-max? I guess I was right all along about questioning why the majority of folks could not achieve the mighty 47/47/47 on the sticker. You are the exception and not the rule. I can exceed the epa sticker ratings on my Mustang and old Gmc pickup if I really really try. But I dont try and I run the A/c at will and just drive them normally most of the time. I dont drive them like I am trying to save the planet and I get without fail pretty much what was on the stickers at the time of purchase. The vast majority on fuelly right now are averaging 40 and the revised combined rating from Ford is now 40 on the C-max. They finally have had to tell the truth. Yes, there can be wild swings with hybrids. I am glad you are happy with yours. I am going to burn as much gasoline and rubber as I can afford before I leave this earth. You are correct that I have never had the opportunity to drive a C-max nor an EB engine for any lengh of time but if I did I would expect them to deliever basically the same results as my 96 gmc and my Mustang givin my driving habits over the last 35 years. Ford has really got caught up in a mess here. If you want to blame me go ahead. I dont care. This is a company I have always loved but I really dont trust them. They dig in deep on something like the EB engines or hybrids and then find out they dont deliver and find some loop hole to get out of it. Seen it too many times. They will never admit to a poor design or poorly engineered product. Instead, they keep trying to fix something that is not fixable. It just pisses me off and I will never trust them. ya see, this is stupid if you buy a hybrid. what is stupid of others is to buy a hybrid and drive the hell out of it. If you are going to pay for a hybrid get the good out of the hybrid part. What is stupid about you is that you fail to recognize other people have different ideas about what is important. You sound like I did when I was 19, 396 SS and wore out 6 tires and had 4 new ones before the 1st payment. stupid. stupid stupid. The good news is if you pay attention you might learn a few things yet. 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.