Lincoln rolls out plan to shift out of reverse

[lincmerc51]

Uh where do you get that AWD is a heavy failure prone system?

 

The Lexus is also nearly 6K more then the MKZ when fully optioned out. The only thing it has that the MKZ doesn't is the Radar cruse control and bluetooth intergration. Not to mention that XM or Sirius is $400 dollar option without a subscription, where as its a less then 200 dollar option on the MKZ with a 6 month subscription. The E350 doesnt offer traction control (according to KBB) nor heated and cooled seats like the MKZ

 

Sorry, but you're wrong.

 

First, it stands to reason that adding mechanical and electronic stuff adds more stuff to break. Or, you could check the frequencyof repair records of Volvos over tyhe last several years.

 

Next, the Lexus does cost more, no argument there. But it has more, whether it's got no options or all the options. I edited above to mention the things that I see off the top that Lexus offers that the Z doesn't. And you and KBB are wrong, the ES comes with standard stability control, which the Z does not even offer. A HUGE mistake when the insureance institute is even saying that's something very important for safety. And again, the ES does offer heated and cooled seats. ANd it offers a choice of XM or Sirius. Z offers only Sirius. (BTW, I for one will NEVER pay for subscription radio so it's a moot point.)

[Edgey]

We've owned several Lincoln LSs, a 2000 and a 2004. They substantially softened the suspension and handling of the LS in the 2003 update. They gave it gobs more power, but handling REALLY suffered!

[silvrsvt]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

 

First, it stands to reason that adding mechanical and electronic stuff adds more stuff to break. Or, you could check the frequencyof repair records of Volvos over tyhe last several years.

 

 

Just because something has more mechanical and electronic items doesn't mean it will break more, all it means that the possibility of it breaking goes up.

 

As for the the repair record of the Halidax system that Volvo uses, I've never heard any issues where it breaks all the time etc..care to back that up at all?

[waymondospiff]

Oh, and the Lexus is not a warmed-over Mazda. Made in Mexico. YOu want a Mazda made in Mexico or a Lexus made in Japan. HMMMM?

 

Said Mazda that is truly world-class; winner of over 60 automotive awards. How many has the Camry won? And said Mazda chassis that utilizes a multi-link rear suspension vs. the Lexus's MacPherson struts?

 

And engine wise:

Lexus ES350 - 3.5L V6 24V DOHC VVTi with 272hp @ 6200rpm & 254torq @ 4700rpm & 6-speed auto

Lincon MKZ - 3.5L V6 24V DOHC "VVT" with 263hp @ 6250rpm & 249torq @ 4500rpm & 6-speed auto

-The 10% trade-off in fuel economy (21c/30h ES350 vs. 19c/27h MKZ) could be factored as part of the difference in fuel costs, premium vs. regular.

 

I agree with you that the MKZ isn't "up-to-snuff" compared to the ES350. The interior isn't as richly detailed & finished and the exterior isn't as differentiated from the Fusion as are the ES350 & Camry. But I'd compare the engines & suspensions between the two any day of the week.

 

When you consider the 10-20% price differential between the ES350 & MKZ it isn't too hard to figure out why some people would buy the MKZ over the ES350. Add in the MKZ's allegedly improved handling and the reasoning becomes even clearer.

 

The MKZ simply isn't comparable to the larger, floaty-boat Lucerne. They will attract different customers, and that's a good thing for both Buick & Lincoln.

 

However, like you, I'm not wild about Lincoln's direction. I wish Lincoln could have a "Sigma-like" chassis to underpin a whole host of new, exclusive products. However, Ford doesn't have the money, and Lincoln's minimal change strategy represents the best hope for the brand in the near term. The other option would be no Lincoln, and I'd prefer a mildly competitive Lincoln to no Lincoln.

 

Scott

[lincmerc51]

Just because something has more mechanical and electronic items doesn't mean it will break more, all it means that the possibility of it breaking goes up.

 

As for the the repair record of the Halidax system that Volvo uses, I've never heard any issues where it breaks all the time etc..care to back that up at all?

 

OK, not want to argue. Your first para basically restates what I was trying to say - an AWD system is more prone to failure than a FWD or RWD system. It's really just basic failure analysis.

 

We've owned several Lincoln LSs, a 2000 and a 2004. They substantially softened the suspension and handling of the LS in the 2003 update. They gave it gobs more power, but handling REALLY suffered!

 

2 is a couple, not several :>)

 

I am aware that they did respond to complaints that the LS rode too firmly in 03. At the same time, that is when they had the ad that showed the LS outhandling the 5 Series, so I stand by my statement that the LS is and probably always will be the best handling Lincoln ever.

 

I'd also like to know for sure that you're doing apples to apples - were BOTh of your LSes Sport or Non-Sports? Mine is an 01 with the 5speed Getrag. And I think it was you that made some harsh negative comment about the Duratech 3.0? Knock wood but I've got almost 80K on mine and it runs like new and I can get 0-60 in about 7.0 in this car. All I've ever done is change the oil. Is my experience unusual? Even my service adviser says the D3.0 is practically bulletproof.

Edited November 5, 2006 by lincmerc51

[lincmerc51]

Said Mazda that is truly world-class; winner of over 60 automotive awards. How many has the Camry won? And said Mazda chassis that utilizes a multi-link rear suspension vs. the Lexus's MacPherson struts?

 

And engine wise:

Lexus ES350 - 3.5L V6 24V DOHC VVTi with 272hp @ 6200rpm & 254torq @ 4700rpm & 6-speed auto

Lincon MKZ - 3.5L V6 24V DOHC "VVT" with 263hp @ 6250rpm & 249torq @ 4500rpm & 6-speed auto

-The 10% trade-off in fuel economy (21c/30h ES350 vs. 19c/27h MKZ) could be factored as part of the difference in fuel costs, premium vs. regular.

 

I agree with you that the MKZ isn't "up-to-snuff" compared to the ES350. The interior isn't as richly detailed & finished and the exterior isn't as differentiated from the Fusion as are the ES350 & Camry. But I'd compare the engines & suspensions between the two any day of the week.

 

When you consider the 10-20% price differential between the ES350 & MKZ it isn't too hard to figure out why some people would buy the MKZ over the ES350. Add in the MKZ's allegedly improved handling and the reasoning becomes even clearer.

 

The MKZ simply isn't comparable to the larger, floaty-boat Lucerne. They will attract different customers, and that's a good thing for both Buick & Lincoln.

 

However, like you, I'm not wild about Lincoln's direction. I wish Lincoln could have a "Sigma-like" chassis to underpin a whole host of new, exclusive products. However, Ford doesn't have the money, and Lincoln's minimal change strategy represents the best hope for the brand in the near term. The other option would be no Lincoln, and I'd prefer a mildly competitive Lincoln to no Lincoln.

 

Scott

 

Hey Scott,

 

Well, yeah, the Mazda 6 is supposed to be a pretty decent car. The Z is on a stretched chassis though, so really all bets are off aren't they? Different dynamics, weight, V6 vs turbo 4 etc. Those things make a difference, eh? Plus you can get an actual controllable transmission in the M6, 2 different ones in fact (select shift or manual). THAT will make a difference in driving dynamics too instead of that STOOOOPID D-L shifter. Argghhh that thing galls me.

 

I agree with you, the engines are a tossup on paper. But Lexus has bragging rights even with just 7 more HP. MT has tested the 3.5 in the MKX though and says it's quite thrashy at higher RPMs. I don't think they say that about the Lexus power plant?

 

Yeah, if the MKZ is supposed to compete with the ES, the best I can say is it's got more letters. That's it.

 

Last, I don't know if you do, or how many people who post or read this board work for Ford. I don't. I'm just a guy who moved up from his first love, Mercury, to Lincoln 6 years ago. Well, actually I haven't had a Mercury since 1972, but my first 2 cars were Mercs (a 64 Monterey convertible and then a 67 Cyclone GT convertible 390/4speed and I wish I had THAT car today.) But Mercury has been deballed and now feminized over the years and the ONLY thing Merc has going for it now is Jill Wagner. The cars are a joke and have been for 20 or 30 years. Even the Marauder turned out to be a sheep in wolf's clothing. I think they'll dump Mercury in 2009. Any takers?

 

I do wish those left at Ford the best of luck. But I doubt I'll buy another Fomoco product. Why? First, the racist Nasser and his purge of white folks. Second, Ford's 'editorial' policies (you all know what I mean) and their insulting commercials. (Eg the one where the wife actually lets her ex-husband see the kids for the day and he fawningly thanks her - BOLD Move, huh to let Dad see the kids?) And Ford is targeting their ads toward everyone but white heterosexual males (like me) (Lincoln = blacks, Mercury = women, Volvo and Jaguar = gays) and I refuse to be taken for granted. And there really aren't any Fords anymore besides the F150. They're all warmed over Mazdas and Volvos and what's the point? If I want an award-winning Mazda 6, I'll buy one instead of a dumbed down (D-L) Fusion etc. If I want a Volvo S80 I'll buy one now, why wait til 2010 for the Lincoln version? Besides, all the Fomoco products are getting killed in comparos. The Edge and MKX just came in behind the Hyundai and Suzuki forgawd'ssake in the SUV comparison tests. Lastly, there isn't anything in the pipe of even remote interest to me. Do I want a Lincoln people mover? HAHA. I seriously wonder if ANYONE will. What I WOULD consider would be a Mercury Cougar version of the present Mustang. Nicely differentiated ala the '67 Cougar. Will I see that? Right after hell freezes over, eh?

[silvrsvt]

OK, not want to argue. Your first para basically restates what I was trying to say - an AWD system is more prone to failure than a FWD or RWD system. It's really just basic failure analysis.

 

Thats like drawing a comparison to FWD and RWD and which is more likely to fail. Which is equal, just because its more complex/different doesn't mean it will break more. Its like saying your Pentium2 is more reliable then a Intel Core 2 Duo CPU since its less complex

[lincmerc51]

Thats like drawing a comparison to FWD and RWD and which is more likely to fail. Which is equal, just because its more complex/different doesn't mean it will break more. Its like saying your Pentium2 is more reliable then a Intel Core 2 Duo CPU since its less complex

 

I can not have a conversation with you about this if you do not understand basic failure analysis. And you obviously do not.

[waymondospiff]

Hey Lincmerc51,

 

I'm getting a sense that you're a disenfranchised Ford fan. I can understand that, but I think that Ford is doing its best to right the ship, spending where it will make the most impact on the bottom line. Now, for an actual response:

 

Well, yeah, the Mazda 6 is supposed to be a pretty decent car. The Z is on a stretched chassis though, so really all bets are off aren't they? Different dynamics, weight, V6 vs turbo 4 etc. Those things make a difference, eh? Plus you can get an actual controllable transmission in the M6, 2 different ones in fact (select shift or manual). THAT will make a difference in driving dynamics too instead of that STOOOOPID D-L shifter. Argghhh that thing galls me.

Ford really needs to do a gated shifter with either gates for all gears or an automanual, no doubt.

 

As far as changes to the chassis, not really. The CD3 is stretched & widened, but the Mazda front & rear suspensions translate largely intact to the Triplets. The difference is tuning as Mazda tunes the parts for "zoom-zoom." The MKZ is supposed to be sportier compared the Zephyr based on buyer feedback last year. All it required to "firm up" the MKZ was tuning really.

 

There is a difference in handling between the MZR & Duratec Mazda6 as the Duratec is quite a bit heavier than the MZR 4 cyl. But I owned a Duratec Mazda6 and it was able to handle the added weight just fine - I'd assume it is the same for the Triplets.

 

I agree with you, the engines are a tossup on paper. But Lexus has bragging rights even with just 7 more HP. MT has tested the 3.5 in the MKX though and says it's quite thrashy at higher RPMs. I don't think they say that about the Lexus power plant?

Mazda had it right when saying "zoom-zoom" is not about numbers, it's about feel. If you aim to be the power leader, you'll only have the title for a short time until someone comes along and passes you. In the subluxury category, the MKZ's 263hp is more than enough.

 

And MT, eh. I'm not too worried about MT as others have been generally pleased with the 3.5L Cyclone. Here are some other sources:

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automoti...-autos-highway1

At its heart is the new all-alloy, 24-valve V6, which manages to put out a lot of power and torque (250 pound-feet at 4,500 rpm) with a minimum of noise and vibration. The Duratec engine's former thrash and harshness has been largely subdued.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=116846

In a Gilligan-esque three-hour tour, we delighted not only in the new mill's willingness to pull us out of corners with authority, but also in the smoothness and refinement of the accompanying sound.

 

I do wish those left at Ford the best of luck. But I doubt I'll buy another Fomoco product. Why? First, the racist Nasser and his purge of white folks. Second, Ford's 'editorial' policies (you all know what I mean) and their insulting commercials. (Eg the one where the wife actually lets her ex-husband see the kids for the day and he fawningly thanks her - BOLD Move, huh to let Dad see the kids?) And Ford is targeting their ads toward everyone but white heterosexual males (like me) (Lincoln = blacks, Mercury = women, Volvo and Jaguar = gays) and I refuse to be taken for granted. And there really aren't any Fords anymore besides the F150. They're all warmed over Mazdas and Volvos and what's the point? If I want an award-winning Mazda 6, I'll buy one instead of a dumbed down (D-L) Fusion etc. If I want a Volvo S80 I'll buy one now, why wait til 2010 for the Lincoln version? Besides, all the Fomoco products are getting killed in comparos. The Edge and MKX just came in behind the Hyundai and Suzuki forgawd'ssake in the SUV comparison tests. Lastly, there isn't anything in the pipe of even remote interest to me. Do I want a Lincoln people mover? HAHA. I seriously wonder if ANYONE will. What I WOULD consider would be a Mercury Cougar version of the present Mustang. Nicely differentiated ala the '67 Cougar. Will I see that? Right after hell freezes over, eh?

Wow...Nasser's gone, can't penalize Ford when that guy is long gone. The Freestyle ad is stupid, but hardly offensive. White heterosexual males: NASCAR & Toby Keith. Trust me, in my marketing studies, the white, heterosexual male & female is by far the "standard." For example, the Freestyle ad. The only time a commercial's casting really stands out is if it is outside the norm, for example gay, black, latino, and occasionally female. I don't have numbers, but I'm guessing Ford's ads are at least 50% white. Dry cleaner, GT500/Autobahn, Jag's "simply gorgeous", Lincoln's MKZ/MKX ads...all white folks.

 

And Ford's are "only" Mazdas or Volvos? Global market, baby. Focus is FofE, Triplets are Mazda-based, & D3s are Volvo-based. GM's small cars (Cobalt/Ion/G5) & midsize cars (Malibu/Aura/G6) are Opel-based, Chrysler's Caliber & Sebring are loosely Mitsubishi-based. Every company needs to use global integration to be competitive. American Fords? Freestar, F-150, F-250, Ranger, Panthers, Mustang, Explorer, Escape (well, Mazda-ish), Explorer, Expedition...plenty of vehicles. Spreading development & sharing costs is not only common sense, it's an economic imperative.

 

So, that's how I feel. I appreciate your position about Ford, but the market has changed since 1970. The American market is more competitive and more diverse than ever before and the car companies need to change with it. If that means co-developing cars with subsidiaries, then so be it. I'd argue that the CD3/Mazda6 is better because of Ford & Mazda's shared resources than either car could be if developed separately. Same with Focus. Same with D3s. Ford is smart to utilize its global resources to make the best cars possible.

 

Scott

[Mark B. Morrow]

Glad to hear that . Guess he need to make up for loseing out to the A380 someplace :shades: .

How exactly has Boeing "Lost Out" to the A380. The A380 hasn't made a dime for Airbus and it is even further away from breaking even based on Airbus' latest projections. With the delays in delivering the ordered units, it looks less likely that it will break even anytime soon.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Mark B. Morrow

[lincmerc51]

Hey Lincmerc51,

 

I'm getting a sense that you're a disenfranchised Ford fan. I can understand that, but I think that Ford is doing its best to right the ship, spending where it will make the most impact on the bottom line. Now, for an actual response:

Ford really needs to do a gated shifter with either gates for all gears or an automanual, no doubt.

 

As far as changes to the chassis, not really. The CD3 is stretched & widened, but the Mazda front & rear suspensions translate largely intact to the Triplets. The difference is tuning as Mazda tunes the parts for "zoom-zoom." The MKZ is supposed to be sportier compared the Zephyr based on buyer feedback last year. All it required to "firm up" the MKZ was tuning really.

 

There is a difference in handling between the MZR & Duratec Mazda6 as the Duratec is quite a bit heavier than the MZR 4 cyl. But I owned a Duratec Mazda6 and it was able to handle the added weight just fine - I'd assume it is the same for the Triplets.

Mazda had it right when saying "zoom-zoom" is not about numbers, it's about feel. If you aim to be the power leader, you'll only have the title for a short time until someone comes along and passes you. In the subluxury category, the MKZ's 263hp is more than enough.

 

And MT, eh. I'm not too worried about MT as others have been generally pleased with the 3.5L Cyclone. Here are some other sources:

http://www.latimes.com/classified/automoti...-autos-highway1

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=116846

 

Wow...Nasser's gone, can't penalize Ford when that guy is long gone. The Freestyle ad is stupid, but hardly offensive. White heterosexual males: NASCAR & Toby Keith. Trust me, in my marketing studies, the white, heterosexual male & female is by far the "standard." For example, the Freestyle ad. The only time a commercial's casting really stands out is if it is outside the norm, for example gay, black, latino, and occasionally female. I don't have numbers, but I'm guessing Ford's ads are at least 50% white. Dry cleaner, GT500/Autobahn, Jag's "simply gorgeous", Lincoln's MKZ/MKX ads...all white folks.

 

And Ford's are "only" Mazdas or Volvos? Global market, baby. Focus is FofE, Triplets are Mazda-based, & D3s are Volvo-based. GM's small cars (Cobalt/Ion/G5) & midsize cars (Malibu/Aura/G6) are Opel-based, Chrysler's Caliber & Sebring are loosely Mitsubishi-based. Every company needs to use global integration to be competitive. American Fords? Freestar, F-150, F-250, Ranger, Panthers, Mustang, Explorer, Escape (well, Mazda-ish), Explorer, Expedition...plenty of vehicles. Spreading development & sharing costs is not only common sense, it's an economic imperative.

 

So, that's how I feel. I appreciate your position about Ford, but the market has changed since 1970. The American market is more competitive and more diverse than ever before and the car companies need to change with it. If that means co-developing cars with subsidiaries, then so be it. I'd argue that the CD3/Mazda6 is better because of Ford & Mazda's shared resources than either car could be if developed separately. Same with Focus. Same with D3s. Ford is smart to utilize its global resources to make the best cars possible.

 

Scott

 

Scott;

 

Thanks for a reasoned response.

 

The Freestyle ad offends me. I've been there and they should lay off divorce and kids. WTF has that to do with selling cars, or Bold moves for that matter?

 

I appreciate and mostly agree with your 'world market' comments. And you do point out a few 'American' Fords that I neglected, though they're pretty much old tech. My problem is that all the new stuff is built on Japanese or European platforms. It's another case of an AMerican company throwing in the towel. It has to do with education and the UAW and Wall St Quarteritis. But it also has to do with Nasser's purge. I know a few engineers at Ford and so I do have a little knowledge about what he did and who got screwed and having seen and been hurt by affirmative action all my life, I find it difficult to forgive and forget that shit.

 

Like I said, I have 2 Lincolns. and 2 Fords as well and I have to correct myself - I did have a Mercury in the stabe for a year or 2 until our friends from Dearborn - oops I mean Saudi Arabia (same thing ain't it? :>) did their stupid plane tricks back in 01 and I got laid off and had to sell it. Was a '65 Park Lane convertible. Man what a beautiful boat that was. I just liked to drive around and listen to that 35 yr old 390 growl (had some mangaflos put on it). But I think Ford has put the straw that breaks the back on lately and I guess I am 'disenfranchised.' Sorry too, cause I don't 'feel' it for any other cars. Maybe that's good though. Time to get emotions out of the car buying decisions.

[Edstock]

"The MKZ is nothing but a Mazda 6 with a waterfall grille, plusher seats and instruments from a 76 Granada. It is a FWD car and cannot compete withthe likes of the CTS on any level."

 

By now, you know that the MK Z is CD3-based, not Mazda 6-based.

 

It is a Haldex chassis, with AWD capability in the chassis from day one. Cheaper models are FWD, costlier models get AWD. Similarly, with RWD BMW, you can pay extra and get an AWD "xi" model.

 

As to the CTS, let's compare the V-6 CTS with the V-6 MK Z AWD, with the same grade of tires. Try a nice tight twisty country road, maybe a little light rain. I'll take the MK X, thanks.

 

I guessed you missed the video posted a while back of a 3.0 AWD Fusion driving a pylon course in the rain. Haldex works. Check out R-type Volvos. Anyway, European/UK SuperTouring and WRC experience has shown the inherent superiority of AWD in all-round performance.

 

But Ford needs a Lincoln CTS-V — and they don't have one. With the new BOSS DOHC, they've got what it takes.

 

Anyway, Ford had to start somewhere, and in a FWD Camry/Lexus 350/Acura/Maxima/Infiniti marketplace, the AWD MK Z is competitive.

 

But, there's lots of holes within the line-up. For example, are "handling" suspension options available for the Fusion? I'm thinking of option packages like the old GM "F-41" package for the Caprice in the late 70's - early 80's. Not just bigger alloy wheels and tires like I see optioned, but bigger brakes, thicker anti-sway bars, heavy-duty shocks, harder bushings, tighter axle ratio like the CV PI, faster steering as well.

[shelbygt500500hp]

I can not have a conversation with you about this if you do not understand basic failure analysis. And you obviously do not.

 

 

basic failure analysis? i understand that ur trying to get out the point that awd is more complex then fwd and rwd but isn't awd sorta like luxury in itself? awd gives u better handling and better traction in bad weather. ppl see that it has awd and they automatically start taking a better look at it. and i would like to know also where u got that the zephyr was to compete with bimmer. ive never heard of anything about that and theres no way the zephyr can compete. the new mkx will be a closer competitor with bimmer but i even think thats out there. the new 3.5l v6 is a gold mine for ford right now. u say that lincolns down already cause it doesn't offer a v8? don't get me wrong i'm a big time mustang fan. i have an 05 black 5 speed manual gt and i never will get a mustang with a v6 in it. but if they can make that new 3.7l v6 get over 300 hp then wheres the need for the v8? the yamaha 4.4l v8 was just to expensive to use thats y ford said goodbye to that engine.also that 3.5 almost gets 30mpg. with 260 hp thats pretty damn good.that 3.5 is also lighter then a lot of v8s. i think ford will eventually use a v8 to put into lincoln. but with a v6 that has v8 power with v6 economy...i'd use it. anyone disagree? like i said i will only own a mustang with a v8 but thats because its a mustang. thats a little different then a lincoln. the mkx's r soon gonna be flying off the lots. inexpensive, awd, plenty of options, and supposedly the handling even got an upgrade. thats a nice car. and also think about what fomoco said recently....70%(or something like that) of the buyers were for the v6 model in the years past. what does that tell u?

[Mark B. Morrow]

I can not have a conversation with you about this if you do not understand basic failure analysis. And you obviously do not.

 

Failure analysis is the process of collecting and analyzing data to determine the cause of a failure and how to prevent it from recurring. It is an important discipline in many branches of manufacturing industry, such as the electronics industry, where it is a vital tool used in the development of new products and for the improvement of existing products. However, it also applies to other fields such as business management and military strategy.

 

Basic failure analysis does not dictate that AWD is more prone to failure than RWD or FWD. Complexity os only one part of the calculation. After all a modern V-8 is many times more complex than a '32 Flathead. It is also many times more reliable. Modern AWD systems are engineered to be reliable. Failure analysis is part of the engineering process. Certainly the Haldex system is better than earlier FWD systems of 20 years ago despite the increased complexity.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Mark B. Morrow

[Footballfan]

Making an all-new RWD platform would cost less than modifiying the lame DEW, just let die goddamnit.

 

I am more with the Orion Falcon chassis, the Mustang's delayed redesign to '11 is the proof that it will use the Orion Falcon chassis.

 

Add to that, the Falcon's chassis is capable of handling the big Ford V8s, the DEW would take a shit load of money to shove a Mod or even a Boss in there.

 

I agree that the Falcon chassis may be more versitile than the DEW 98, but the DEW 98 was something they had now- not something that will take five years to make it over here.

[akirby]

I agree that the Falcon chassis may be more versitile than the DEW 98, but the DEW 98 was something they had now- not something that will take five years to make it over here.

 

DEW98 was too expensive but more importantly it's too small for the modular V8s. Otherwise the LS would have had a 4.6L several years ago.

[lincmerc51]

Failure analysis is the process of collecting and analyzing data to determine the cause of a failure and how to prevent it from recurring. It is an important discipline in many branches of manufacturing industry, such as the electronics industry, where it is a vital tool used in the development of new products and for the improvement of existing products. However, it also applies to other fields such as business management and military strategy.

 

Basic failure analysis does not dictate that AWD is more prone to failure than RWD or FWD. Complexity os only one part of the calculation. After all a modern V-8 is many times more complex than a '32 Flathead. It is also many times more reliable. Modern AWD systems are engineered to be reliable. Failure analysis is part of the engineering process. Certainly the Haldex system is better than earlier FWD systems of 20 years ago despite the increased complexity.

 

I agree with most of this. However, I would restate it a bit and add that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, the probability of failure of any electromechanical device is proportional to the number of components in the device. Even more so, to the number of moving components. Like you say 'complexity is (only) one part of the calculation.' So if we have a FWD system mfd by company H and an AWD system mfd by the same company (not 50 years apart either :>), the probablity is that the AWD system will have more failures. Apples to apples please.

[RichardJensen]

So if we have a FWD system mfd by company H and an AWD system mfd by the same company (not 50 years apart either :>), the probablity is that the AWD system will have more failures. Apples to apples please.

No apples to apples there.

 

You can't compare a transmission with an AWD transfer case. They're two different components.

[SysEng]

How exactly has Boeing "Lost Out" to the A380. The A380 hasn't made a dime for Airbus and it is even further away from breaking even based on Airbus' latest projections. With the delays in delivering the ordered units, it looks less likely that it will break even anytime soon.

 

:blah: :blah: :blah: The A380 is the biggest and the best, and the best of the biggest. You can argue this one any way you like. it still comes out the same way. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. Personally, I don't think Boeing should take a back seat to this thing. But they are! :reading:

[RichardJensen]

The A380 is the biggest and the best, and the best of the biggest.

I remember another biggest and best:

[ZanatWork]

If the A380 is consistent with other Airbus offerings...given personal experience...I'll pass.

[Edstock]

"The A380 is the biggest and the best, and the best of the biggest."

 

It is the biggest. It has yet to enter service, so whether it will emerge to be the "best", is yet to be determined.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. However, some are beginning to wonder. We will see.

 

It might be the Bristol Brabazon of the New Millenium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Brabazon

 

[lincmerc51]

No apples to apples there.

 

You can't compare a transmission with an AWD transfer case. They're two different components.

 

I said "system" FGS. One has a transmission and a way to get power to the wheels, the other has those things PLUS the transfer case. Geez. Get in the game will you?

[RichardJensen]

I said "system" FGS. One has a transmission and a way to get power to the wheels, the other has those things PLUS the transfer case. Geez. Get in the game will you?

Yes, but:

 

1 a) Haldex doesn't manufacture transmissions for Ford, therefore your prediction that a Haldex transfer case would have a greater likelihood of failure, based on increased complexity and the failure of Ford transmissions is flawed

 

1 B) Even if point 1a wasn't itself a flawed argument, and assuming Ford manufactured both transfer case and transmission it is also flawed to predict failure based not on an analysis of the quality of the system, but on the history of the corporation that engineered it.

 

2) an AWD transfer case is fundamentally different than a transaxle. A car can have both an AWD transfer case AND a transaxle, it can have ONLY a transaxle, but it cannot have ONLY a transfer case (at least not if you want to go someplace).

 

Therefore, describing the entire thing as a 'system' is an oversimplification, which, taken to further extremes allows the classification of a bicycles with training wheels along with passenger cars (transportation systems designed for at least 2 people), or formula 1 cars and pogo sticks (1 person transportation system), etc.

Edited November 7, 2006 by RichardJensen

[waymondospiff]

:blah: :blah: :blah: The A380 is the biggest and the best, and the best of the biggest. You can argue this one any way you like. it still comes out the same way. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. Personally, I don't think Boeing should take a back seat to this thing. But they are! :reading:

Others have already corrected you, but I can't resist. "SysEng" indicates you are a Systems Engineer. As any type of engineer you have to know that it isn't size but performance that determines success.

 

CASM (Cost per Average Seat Mile) is the airline industry standard for calculating the cost to fly one seat, one mile - for example a 50-pass jet will cost less to fly than a 150-seat jet, but total cost divided by number of seats leads to CASM, an accurate measure of costs...and one where larger jets have advantages over smaller jets.

 

The A380 will enter service with the lowest seat-mile costs in the industry. However, the Boeing B747-8I, when it enters service in 2009/2010, will meet the CASM of the A380. For cargo hauling the B747-8F will have much lower costs per ton.

 

The real problem for the A380 is the B787. The B787-8 will be only slightly higher than the 2.5 times larger A380. The B787-9 will have better CASM than the A380 and the proposed B787-10 will have even better CASM. Since the dawn of commercial aviation, larger planes have always had the advantage of being cheaper to fly per seat. So, if it's cheaper, why wouldn't we all be flying around in B747s? Well, if you can't fill those extra seats of the larger plane it is money lost. Cost vs. Profit potential.

 

What is the advantage for flying a larger airplane with the potential of loosing money with empty seats when the CASM is HIGHER than a smaller airplane? The only advantage of the A380 is the ability to fly MORE people into capacity-limited airports. Currently, the only airports that are capacity limited are London-Heathrow, Frankfurt-Main, and (iffy) Chicago-O'Hare. The most popular airplanes at London-Heathrow? The mid-size widebodies - A330/A340s & B767s & B777s. Not the B747. If Heathrow was chock full of loaded B747s all day long the demand for A380s would be more realistic. But Heathrow isn't.

 

The A380 is chasing a non-existant market. It's not to say that it won't sell, some airlines will find a need for it. But there is not large-scale demand for 500-passenger airplanes in today's market. And the A380 is most likely to be the last all-new airplane without the weight savings of mainly composite construction & wireless IFE systems. The A380 is an airplane that is already outdated before it even enters service.

 

So, SysEng, I'll agree, the A380 is the biggest. But best? Not hardly.

 

Scott