Did Ford go the wrong direction in gas mileage and HP?

Most of Ford, GM and DC's line of cars are high HP and low gas mileage. Considering that we seem to be on the verge of another gas crisis, is Ford and the rest of the US auto makers once again going to get caught with their pants down when gas hits $3.00+/gal?

Those Navigator owners may wish to sell their monsters now, before they become totally worthless.

Reply to
Wheresthebabes?
Loading thread data ...

Well, I don't think I could sum this up any better then...

DUH!

Later, Shaun!

--------

Check out my Homepage

formatting link
delete Nospam from e-mail to reply!

Reply to
Shadowhawk
** Most of Ford, GM and DC's line of cars are high HP and low gas ** mileage. Considering that we seem to be on the verge of another gas ** crisis, is Ford and the rest of the US auto makers once again going to ** get caught with their pants down when gas hits $3.00+/gal?

All three carry fuel-efficient models that will satisfy the needs of the buying public, regardless of fuel costs.

I will be chuckling (again) as fuel hits record costs this summer, watching land-barge pilots trying to keep a stiff upper lip as they throw down over $100.00 to fill up. 3-4 year old SUV's will start showing up on streetcorners with faded $1250. 'for-sale' signs hanging in the window. And no one will be buying, of course. I wouldn't even buy one of those things to use as a beater car.

It *will* be good. Try not to laugh so hard when it begins.

-JD

________________________________________________________ | | | 1998 Laser Red GT RAMFM Member Since 1998 | | M-5400-A Suspension http:/207.13.104.8/users/jdadams || Subframe Connectors & Seat Bracing, Strut Tower Brace || 4-point K-frame Brace, Tremec T-45 & OEM 3.27:1 Gears ||________________________________________________________|

Reply to
JD Adams

Amen. I am laughing already.

A friend who just HAD to have an Expedition is now crying more than once a week when he drops $100 to fill up. Thats easilly $6000 a year for gasoline!

LJH

95GT

Reply to
Larry Hepinstall

Oh my GAWD... there's no way in hell I could afford that. I'm actually looking to buy a good bike now. I just wish the sidewalks around here were better. I had a good bike once... my sister stole it.. or "borrowed it" and decided to never return it.. even after asking.

-Mike

Reply to
<memset

No. Ford and GM both own enough companies world wide to have more fuel efficent vehicles in US showrooms in short order if they *WANT* to. For the UAW members it may not be so good short term.

Reply to
Brent P

Bicycles don't belong on sidewalks and it's often illegal for adults to ride them on sidewalks. If you are serious about using a bicycle for transportation reading up on vehicular cycling will save you trouble in the long run. I learned what I had to do the hard way.

Reply to
Brent P

I'd hafta ride a bike on the sidewalks... I'm around everything that I need that's within semi-short biking distance.. and the road is *busy*. I'd rather be illegal in this case than get run over. Sometimes I like a long stroll so I walk to wherever I'm going.

-Mike

Reply to
<memset

Studies show sidewalk riders are the most likely to be hit. Nobody is looking for vehicles moving 10-30mph on the sidewalk. When I did sidewalk riding and switched to vehicluar cycling, the rate of near misses dropped dramatically.

Reply to
Brent P

If it were up to me, I'd ban bicycles completely from public roads and sidewalks. Most bicyclist that I encounter do not obey the rules of the road - they blast through stop signs, they wander into the raod from the bike lane - just a lot of shit that causes my heartrate to increase when I see them, not knowing what they may do next. I don't want to hit one, because a bicycle could really damage my car.

That is how I feel about bicyclist.

Reply to
Ralph Snart

Good thing you aren't dictator.

Nearly all motorists I encounter don't obey the rules of the road.

At the same speed motorists roll through them.

A bike lane is not a bicycle restriction. The bicycle lane is ghetto created because too many drivers cannot be bothered to execute a proper pass. And as a ghetto it is often unusable. I avoid the debris and problems of the bicycle lane by not using it at all. Won't have to worry about me wandering back and forth from the glorified shoulder. I will be on the roadway proper the entire time.

Much like most motorists I encounter. (driving or riding)

And I don't want to be hit by a motor vehicle (driving or riding)

Given the way most people drive, I'd prefer they were using bicycles.

It's funny, how people like yourself are so accepting of idiotcy behind the wheel of the automobile that you wouldn't dare consider baning it because of the idiotcy of the population at large. A segment of that population uses bicycles too, but I'll tell ya something, as bad as some people are on bicycle, the percentage of the population that is competent is higher in cyclists than it is in drivers IME. But it's the bicycle that people suggest be banned.

Reply to
Brent P

Matter of opinion - I think that I'd be a great dictator..

Almost EVERY speedo-wearing bicyclist that I see blast trhough 4 way stop signs, as if to stop is beneath them. I guess that that have to keep their pulse rate up.

Not excusing any motorist that may go through the stop signs, but a 2 ton car vs. a bicycle is not a fair fight, so you would think that the bicyclist would be very leery about going through stop signs and red lights...

Well. look at it this way - my car burns gas which is taxed very heavily per gallon for road building, repair and maintenence. Bicycles do not use gas, therefore should not have equal access to the roads.

I have a co-worker who ran a red light and was hit -- broke his hip and trashed his bike, and he's whining about how the person who had the right-of-way should have been watching out for him. Of course it was too important to stop because he was trying to break his old record for riding a certain amount of milage over a certain amount of time.

Darwinism at work.

Reply to
Ralph Snart

I don't think Ford is going to get the same profit kick back from selling a Mazda 3 that it does from selling a Navigator.

Reply to
Wheresthebabes?

Ford should makes the most profit on cars that are demanded the most. Right now that is the suv's and trucks. If that were to change to small cars, Ford would be able to profit more from selling those cars instead. Sinple supply demand...

Fred

Reply to
fclaugus

You aren't looking for the others. I am one of those others. I've had motorists get pissed off at me for stoping at stop signs and blocking them from passing me and rolling through it.

So how many times have you had to lockup the binders to avoid hitting one as to just seeing one go across the intersection? Most times the people riding don't know any better and cross as they would on foot, they look both ways and go. But what do you expect when a large portion of population refuses recognize a bicyclist as vehicle operator in the first place?

Oh the old tired false tax issue.

1) Roads are built using a varity of taxes including property taxes. 2) Most bicyclists also drive. I own three cars, pay the taxes for three cars, could legally have all three cars on the road and in use at the same time. When I use a bicycle, who's not paying? Most bicyclists drive, the few that don't are more than covered by those who do. 3) Bicyclists don't need the expensive heavy duty roads. About 3 feet wide crushed stone compacted workes well for bicycles. This means the wear and tear on the roads built to handle trucks that comes from bicyclists is a big wopping ZERO.

In conclusion, tax wise, bicyclists are paying more than their fair share. They pay all the other taxes that feed into road building that are not on automobile use. Most pay the taxes on automobiles. And bicycles cause no measurable wear to the roads. Bicyclists subsidize other road users.

Reply to
Brent P

Wheresthebabes? wrote

I thought Wheresthebabes' original post was about CARS: "Most of Ford, GM and DC's line of CARS are high HP and low gas mileage." Although it was others, not Where, who changed the subject to SUV's, how is GM's, Ford's, or D-C's lineup of SUV's and pickups any different than any other full line maker, like Toyota or Nissan? Just a few examples, using the Car & Driver website: Toyota Land Cruiser: EPA city/highway mpg 13/16. Ford Expedition: EPA city/highway mpg

14?15/17?19. Toyota is WORSE than Ford. Nissan Titan 4-door: EPA city: 15 mpg, EPA highway: 19 mpg. Ford F-150 (all models): EPA city driving: 14-16 mpg, EPA highway driving: 18-21 mpg. A dead heat.

What's interesting is the fairly low mpg of the bread and butter sedans:

Model----EPA city/hwy----engine Camry-------24/28-------3.3-liter, 225 hp Accord------20/23-------3.0-liter, 240 hp Passat------18/25-------4.0-liter, 270 hp Malibu------22/30-------3.5-liter, 200 hp Taurus------20/27-------3.0-liter, 200 hp Intrepid----18/26-------3.5-liter, 244 hp

In my book, 18 to 24 city mpg is not a whole lot better than the 14-18 city numbers put up by the 5000 lb SUV's and trucks. A difference of between 25 and 33 percent. Not enough to put ol' Bessie the 4 x 4 Suburban on the block for $2500.

Conclusions: (1) wheresthebabes is just another Detroit basher/troll baiter. Apples vs. apples there's no difference between the lineups of GM, Ford, and D-C on the one side and Toyota, Nissan, and Honda on the other. (2) All you other guys gloating over the stupidity of the SUV/truck driver are going to have to point to a viable alternative that will actually cause these folks to trade in their beloved behemoths. Because the typical four-door family sedan ain't it.

180 Out TS 28
Reply to
180 Out

not to mention the environmental issues: bicylists don't contribute to air pollution, savings thousands of lives each year. I don't bike much, but walk whenever I can. still want the 05 GT though :-)

Reply to
Zed

Which is exactly the point. Ford has geared up to sell low gas mileage cars, while we're in the middle of a very unstable political situation WRT gas prices. After 9/11 the writing was on the wall. If tomorrow gas goes to four or five bucks a gallon, Ford is going to crash as bad or worse than they did in the gas crisis of the 70s. The only advantage now is that the Japanese and Germans are going to hurt too because they've joined the big truck/low mgp party as well to some extent.

Reply to
Wheresthebabes?

Just

Right. And most of those Japanese big trucks are built right here in the USA or Canada. When the hammer falls, a lot of US workers will be out of a job.

You forgot Civic 36/44 Kia Rio 27/36 Toyota Echo 34/41 and a host of others.

The greatly increased sales of these will make up for the truck shortfall. Unfortunately, GM and Ford don't have anything like them to pull themselves out of the hole.

The low mileage cars will be going away as well, just not as fast. $100/fillup for large SUVs, $60/fillup for low mileage sedans won't be tolerated long by people who can replace them with $11,000 Kias that cost $30/fillup. Of course, this is before the european turbo diesels get here and really kick both the Japanese and US automaker's butts.

Reply to
Wheresthebabes?

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.