T hawker Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 Okay, time for the turd in the punch bowl. What about turbo's and 10 speed transmissions? What does that cost to develop and build. My 85 t-bird, 5.0 v8, 4 speed aod, 30 mpg on the open road, 86 ranger, 2.9 v6, 4 speed aod, 33 mpg on the open road. Sure i know about gears and rpms, direct injection, tail pipe emissions. If 10 speed is wonderful, why not skip the 10 and go straight for a 20. What about the size of vehicles today, i watched a youtube Nautilus review, they parked it next to a 1980's towncar, towncar looked like a compact next to it. But i love my Nautilus, even with 8 speeds and 2 turbo's, homelink, cd player, keypad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, T hawker said: Okay, time for the turd in the punch bowl. What about turbo's and 10 speed transmissions? What does that cost to develop and build. My 85 t-bird, 5.0 v8, 4 speed aod, 30 mpg on the open road, 86 ranger, 2.9 v6, 4 speed aod, 33 mpg on the open road. Sure i know about gears and rpms, direct injection, tail pipe emissions. If 10 speed is wonderful, why not skip the 10 and go straight for a 20. What about the size of vehicles today, i watched a youtube Nautilus review, they parked it next to a 1980's towncar, towncar looked like a compact next to it. But i love my Nautilus, even with 8 speeds and 2 turbo's, homelink, cd player, keypad.... This argument has been going on for a decade or more now. EPA Highway cycle is not steady cruise at 60 mph, that’s why the ‘85 T’bird and ‘86 Ranger you mentioned both get 22 mph on the official test cycle..... Fast forward 30 years and vehicles are much heavier, accelerate faster - it’s amazing that a 3.5EB F150 gets similar fuel economy as those two vehicles Edited December 15, 2019 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OX1 Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 (edited) We got the last year Escape, 17 were 2.0 Eco was a stand alone option on SE. I don't want Ti with 19 inch wheels and low profile tires that ride like crap and are damage prone ( I swear she aims for big potholes). I'm sure Ford did this for profit, but it was that added power (much more than competition with earlier 2.0 Escapes and Fusion Sport) , without having to go top spec, on the Fusions and Escapes that made me get 4 of them, since 2014 (and not really even consider other brands). Edited December 15, 2019 by OX1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 16 hours ago, jpd80 said: But not to the same degree, Ford is going way beyond the sweet spot in Mulally's business strategy in order to attain Hackett's higher profit percentages. While that sounds like a great plan there will be collateral damage that Jim hasn't anticipated. We're already seeing it with Explorer where its sales are not matching production and inventory has now soared to over 67,000 going into winter. Production of 2020 Escape is now two shifts at 18K/mth and matching USA/Canada/Mexico sales but that's also way down from last year's three shifts and 27K/mth production.... But ATP... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 Want to cut costs? 3 speed wipers, not 10! Limit hub cap designs to three, not 10! Back in the 60's, there used to be 3 air filter part nos. each for Ford, GM and Chrysler! Not now! Ford or any car mfr. shouldn't have to ever design a new starter or alternator for an ICE ever again! Did you ever see how many different toothpastes and sizes there are? Make one that does everything, whitens, fights cavities etc. in small, and large! Half an aisle is needed in the grocery stores! All this crap takes up warehouse space, retail space and takes the consumer 10 minutes to make a toothpaste purchase! Here's a tip: They show in the TV ads squeezing toothpaste onto the entire length of the brush head! You only need 1/2 inch!!! Greedy capitalism! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 17 minutes ago, Joe771476 said: Want to cut costs? 3 speed wipers, not 10! Limit hub cap designs to three, not 10! Back in the 60's, there used to be 3 air filter part nos. each for Ford, GM and Chrysler! Not now! Ford or any car mfr. shouldn't have to ever design a new starter or alternator for an ICE ever again! Did you ever see how many different toothpastes and sizes there are? Make one that does everything, whitens, fights cavities etc. in small, and large! Half an aisle is needed in the grocery stores! All this crap takes up warehouse space, retail space and takes the consumer 10 minutes to make a toothpaste purchase! Here's a tip: They show in the TV ads squeezing toothpaste onto the entire length of the brush head! You only need 1/2 inch!!! Greedy capitalism! 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJPrelude Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Joe771476 said: Want to cut costs? 3 speed wipers, not 10! Limit hub cap designs to three, not 10! Back in the 60's, there used to be 3 air filter part nos. each for Ford, GM and Chrysler! Not now! Ford or any car mfr. shouldn't have to ever design a new starter or alternator for an ICE ever again! Did you ever see how many different toothpastes and sizes there are? Make one that does everything, whitens, fights cavities etc. in small, and large! Half an aisle is needed in the grocery stores! All this crap takes up warehouse space, retail space and takes the consumer 10 minutes to make a toothpaste purchase! Here's a tip: They show in the TV ads squeezing toothpaste onto the entire length of the brush head! You only need 1/2 inch!!! Greedy capitalism! HAHA, I love it. Can't say your wrong though! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 The 2020 Ranger is already the victim of decontenting. The Ranger name embroidery on the Lariat seats has been deleted. The rear head rests no longer fold down and the front parking sensors have been removed from Co-pilot 360. To get the front sensors you now have to pay extra for the tech package. I guess this would all be fine if the saving were passed onto the consumer, but they won't be. Ford just hopes people don't miss the small things and will continue to pay higher and higher prices. Nasser loved decontenting the hell out of stuff and it looks like Hackett is following that formula. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 42 minutes ago, 2005Explorer said: I guess this would all be fine if the saving were passed onto the consumer, but they won't be. That would defeat the purpose of decontenting. I don't like it either but that's how it works. I would rather see them decontent the base trims and just raise prices a little on the higher trims. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jniffen Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 8:39 AM, silvrsvt said: https://www.autonews.com/commentary/hacketts-remedy-sticker-shock Car prices can't keep rising forever, he says. And the way to fix that problem is through what he calls "reductive design." He notes that Ford still has some cars with CD players when most everyone is carrying around a library of music on their phones. Found that interesting-I use mine all the time and my sister's 2020 Explorer XLT didn't have homelink on it. I'm going with that its a slight pain in the ass to setup (was in my old house, but it had better security) and its just easier for users to use the remotes they have for garage door openers (if they have them-wonder what the market penetration is for that) to open them...plus I'd say better then 80% of the people on my block don't even use their garages for their cars. Sooo, you can get it in any color, as long as it is black? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 On 12/23/2019 at 10:37 AM, akirby said: That would defeat the purpose of decontenting. I don't like it either but that's how it works. I would rather see them decontent the base trims and just raise prices a little on the higher trims. Yes I know it’s done for profit purposes, but it seems foolish to target models like the Ranger that are trying to get established back into a segment. The other midsized trucks already offer a much better split-fold rear seat and now the Ranger makes it’s rear seat even worse? That doesn’t make sense to me. What goes next? The hood struts replaced by a prop rod? I probably shouldn’t have said that because if anyone from Ford just read this I probably gave them an idea. Lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelyD Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 This decontent approach isn't making much sense on my 2019 Escape S. It is a base model obviously. I was surprised to see the Sirius and CD player delete. However they added a back up camera and voice command radio as std equipment on an Escape S. Silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 Back up camera is a federal requirement now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 23 minutes ago, SteelyD said: This decontent approach isn't making much sense on my 2019 Escape S. It is a base model obviously. I was surprised to see the Sirius and CD player delete. However they added a back up camera and voice command radio as std equipment on an Escape S. Silly. CD player delete was across the board. Backup camera was added because it's required by law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 26 minutes ago, akirby said: Back up camera is a federal requirement now. How... why... that's ridiculous. I didn't realize the human race lost the ability to turn their necks and see objects behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 1 hour ago, probowler said: How... why... that's ridiculous. I didn't realize the human race lost the ability to turn their necks and see objects behind them. Because you can’t see a child sitting behind the vehicle no matter how much you look from the drivers seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, akirby said: Because you can’t see a child sitting behind the vehicle no matter how much you look from the drivers seat. Yes, I have driven a car before; blind spots are a thing. Strange that despite the presence of such a danger...zone, no child has ever sat behind my car. What a stupid rule for something that maybe happens 100 times a year? If that. Honestly at this point, we're just upsetting natural selection. Cars have gotten along just fine without cameras for over a hundred years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 21 minutes ago, probowler said: Yes, I have driven a car before; blind spots are a thing. Strange that despite the presence of such a danger...zone, no child has ever sat behind my car. What a stupid rule for something that maybe happens 100 times a year? If that. Honestly at this point, we're just upsetting natural selection. Cars have gotten along just fine without cameras for over a hundred years. It’s not 100 per year it’s 210. I guess it’s stupid to prevent 210 deaths every year, most of whom are children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MY93SHO Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, probowler said: Yes, I have driven a car before; blind spots are a thing. Strange that despite the presence of such a danger...zone, no child has ever sat behind my car. What a stupid rule for something that maybe happens 100 times a year? If that. Honestly at this point, we're just upsetting natural selection. Cars have gotten along just fine without cameras for over a hundred years. Listen smartass, our neighbor backed over his girlfriends' two-year-old daughter. It took him a long time to recover from that. I'd love to see you tell him your stupid opinion and watch him pound your nose flat. But hey, you don't have to worry about that because you're hiding behind a screen. Do humanity a favor and write all your stupid opinions on a nice heavy piece of cardboard and then fold it up and cram it where the sun doesn't shine. Edited December 25, 2019 by MY93SHO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 Cool motive, still don't like the NHSTA. Seriously, how deep does this rabbit hole go? I'm tired of this never ending safety argument that only results in the government mandating more and more rules and technologies which increase vehicle cost and complexity with marginal safety gains. Seatbelts, backup cameras, automatic breaking, blah blah blah.... Thanks but no thanks. I'll take dangerous freedom over your "safe" authoritarianism all day ✌️ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 25, 2019 Author Share Posted December 25, 2019 4 hours ago, probowler said: Seatbelts, backup cameras, automatic breaking, blah blah blah.... Thanks but no thanks. I'll take dangerous freedom over your "safe" authoritarianism all day ✌️ Cool, how about we treat you with 18th century medicine then.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted December 26, 2019 Share Posted December 26, 2019 44 minutes ago, silvrsvt said: Cool, how about we treat you with 18th century medicine then.... Well, since this is (not yet) a socialistic "free" healthcare welfare state, I'm just going to continue to purchase high quality healthcare as needed. Cool how that works huh? Letting people buy what they want when they need it, instead of telling people what they need and using force of government to make them pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stampede.Offroad Posted December 26, 2019 Share Posted December 26, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, silvrsvt said: Cool, how about we treat you with 18th century medicine then.... That's a really awful argument, because you can decline medical treatment you don't want, and the government doesn't force you to receive it or pay for it even if you decline it. That is not the case with safety systems in automobiles --- and the cost structure is the opposite, the less safety systems you want in an automobile the more you pay for the vehicle (because the only ones allowed to be without them are the custom 'small batch' class vehicles, and imports slammed with taxes). For example, I think a Suzuki Jimny would be pretty cool, but I'd end up paying a ridiculous cost in import taxes etc for a vehicle that has an MSRP comparable to an ATV. Edited December 26, 2019 by Stampede.Offroad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted December 26, 2019 Author Share Posted December 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Stampede.Offroad said: That's a really awful argument, because you can decline medical treatment you don't want, and the government doesn't force you to receive it or pay for it even if you decline it. That is not the case with safety systems in automobiles --- and the cost structure is the opposite, the less safety systems you want in an automobile the more you pay for the vehicle (because the only ones allowed to be without them are the custom 'small batch' class vehicles, and imports slammed with taxes). Not really because what incentive would there be to improve a car-why not a hand crank instead of a electric starter? All your coming across is a knuckle dragger that touts the gov is blame for all ills in society with zero world view outside your own little world. Just because you think it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean that it affects society at large. If you think a $50-100 at cost camera is going to ruin your view on how a car operates, well you got bigger issues in your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted December 26, 2019 Share Posted December 26, 2019 2 hours ago, silvrsvt said: Not really because what incentive would there be to improve a car-why not a hand crank instead of a electric starter? The gov't had nothing to do with switching from crank starting to electric starters; the free market did that all on its own. The same thing happened with backup cameras--those were around for years (and lots of people bought them) before someone decided to force them into all new cars. 3 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.