Ford gets a clue

The worst part is the 500 is the nicest sedan Ford has offered in 40 years! If you haven't test driven one you don't have a clue. Go to the dealer and drive one on the same day you drive a Crown Vic, a Taurus and a Mustang. The 500 Sedan is leaps and bounds ahead and like I said, the best put together sedan package Ford has offered in 40 plus years.

I was waiting for the 265 horse 3.5 liter to come out in it next year. I am pissed that they are going to re-badge it and call it Taurus. I agree with you that Ford is stupid for dropping successful name plates! I see this "oops, we are total bumbling IDIOTS and are going to rename a new car model because we can pull our heads out of our asses" approach as the epitome of incompetence. Renaming existing models is even more of a marketing mistake than dropping successful name plates.

I was looking at the new Mercury Zephyr, because I have an attachment to that name. Then Ford decides to rename it some stupid number/initial scheme (if I wanted a Mazda I would not be shopping with Ford). That silly incompetence takes that car off my list. My wife and I had effectively decided on a 2008 Ford 500 with the more powerful engine. Then along comes Ford with their stupid incompetent "Duh we have no friggin clue what we are doing" name change scheme again.

I would have been buying a 2008 Ford 500 AWD. I won't be buying a 2008 Ford 500 renamed as a Taurus.

If/when they rename the 500, I will be shopping for our new family sedan from the entire market. I might as well go with a BMW and get all of the amenities and the MANUAL TRANSMISSION I really want.

Ford better get a good plan in place and implement it. All this foolish bumbling around is going to KILL them!

Between their totally fumbling the 2007 Shelby GT500 and this idiotic model name plate blundering, Ford has about stretched my loyalty to it's limit.

They should just roll it into the Taurus 500.

Calling the car '500' was just stpuid. Ford traditionally used 500 as a suffix to the model name. Fairlane 500, Galaxie 500XL, etc.

My first swipe takes everything that doesn't offer a manual transmission off the list. That cuts the market choices down real quick.

We have a last generation Sable and it is has shown to be a very good, dependable car. With the Duratech engine it is also quite peppy. IMO, there was nothing wrong with the Taurus/Sable that warranted their termination. Plus we bought it with every option (leather, power moonroof, Mach sound system, CD changer, power everything etc.) for under $20k of the showroom floor. It was definitely decent competition for the Camry.

I don't put that much emphasis on the name. I haven't driven a 500 but then I don't think Ford's cars are even close to bed. On the contrary they are quite good. They just have no marketing sense.

IMO, Ford should roll out a new car that is slightly smaller than the

500 as the new Taurus and keep the 500 as an upgrade alternative. Then do an advertising blitz to introduce the "modernized" Taurus. Roll out a hybrid (all the rage these days) and put some good technology behind it. Green sells nowadays.

I wonder if the potential monetary gain from offering a manual tranny is worth the added R&D and manufacturing costs.

I don't see how they can afford a "new" plan. The time to turn the

500's legacy into into that of a Taurus would be years and years. I bet Ford has 2-3 years to turn things around at most. IMO, they can't do it with new model names no matter how good the cars are engineered.

They are really trying my patience too. If they don't produce the number of GT500s they advertised then I am likely done buying Fords.

In the case of the 500, it would depend if volvo offered it on that platform. If so, the costs would be as close to zero as possible.

I keep saying it, but Ford would do well to bring the Falcon over to compete with all the RWD sedans on the market. And keep it called a Falcon. In fact, Ford should play on it's traditional names for new well made, well executed cars.

It's in the dead of winter and prices are still way over sticker. The demand is there, logically they should fill it. But the marketeers are probably more concerned about execusivity than selling cars.

I can't see there being much of a demand for manual trannies in a "for the masses" family sedan. People who want that are going to be looking a BMW's etc., IMO.

The Thunderbird and Cougar are two more that have great potential. Especially the Thunderbird.

I haven't seen any actual production numbers yet. They should have made

1,500-2,000 of them by now.

In the true sport sedan market, the manual transmissions are standard equiptment and the slush boxes cost extra.

There is a market for it, otherwise BMW couldn't do it and charge more for their manual transmission sports sedan than comparable competitors do. I would much prefer to buy Ford's Volvo platform all wheel drive sedan with a

6-speed manual transmission than paying 1/3 more for the BMW.

From my prospective (I bought 3 Taurus SHO's because they were family sedan's with some extra Oomph and a manual transaxle) I wouldn't choose the automatic over a manual transmission in any application. I had to special order my 2005 F-450 XLT Lariat PSD 4X4 with the 6 speed manual.

However they do it bumbling along and renaming existing models is NOT helping their cause...

The 500's Duratec(from the Taurus) 3.0 is 70 Hp per liter. Sometimes more, sometimes less depending on trim.

Rob

That 500 engine is only 67 Hp/liter. A major improvement in Ford (GM is still putting 52 Hp/liter engines in their base models because Wagoner, et al are bean counters). But still not achieved is 70 when

70+ was world standard a decade ago.

Under William Clay, some engineering was restarted in Ford - since a 'bean counter' Jacques Nasser stifled innovation for four years ending

2001 (which is why first year Focus had so many reliability problems). Still, the 500, Fusion, etc vehicles of 2007 release have much to go to only be world equivalent. These days, any vehicle that does not do 70 HP/liter with only fuel injection is ... well that was the standard 10 years ago.

Base engine for a 2005 Taurus was 51 Hp/liter (153 Hp). 2006 Taurus was 52 Hp/liter (155 hp). Don't let 'bean counters' and the ill informed fool you. Engines with the same name and same liters are no where near same when Hp/liter is so different. Massive hardware changes are required for the higher Hp/liter number - which is also a reflection of vehicle life expectancy. Higher hp/liter number on a base engine means a more reliable vehicle.

Companies dominated by accountants (bean counters) stifle innovation in the name of cost controls. Car company run by a bean counter will see resulting stifled innovation four and ten years later on spread sheets. Spred sheets are a summary of work performed four to ten years previously - not a report on work performed this year. "Bean counters' will deny this because they do not understand and therefore cannot measure innovation.

Under William Clay, Ford finally began addressing their pathetic engines. What exists today had to be started at least four years ago. Ford is not yet doing what was standard world wide 10 years ago; but is doing much better. Those damn numbers so feared and misunderstood by a country full of lawyers, MBAs, and communication majors. But notice why Toyota, et al do so well. Do the numbers.

Meanwhile no one needs a 265 HP engine. Even in the 1970s, the 350 V-8 that was plenty of power was doing only 180 Hp. The only reason one needs 200+ Hp? His ego is somehow confused with logic. Those heavier 1970 vehicles with the large block V-8 did between 160 and 190 hp - and that was more than sufficient even with a less efficient 3 speed transmission and rear wheel drive.

The 1989 Ford Taurus SHO 3.0 liter V-6 made 220 horsepower... Thats 73.3 horsepower power per liter...

I'm afraid you're not helping Ford's case. That was a Yamaha engine.

Ya, probably no more than the Ford 500/Taurus being a Volvo platform, or Chevy being able to compete in the diesel truck market only because of Isuzu diesel engines, or Dodge because of Cummins...

Your point?

I don't see the new Taurus as being a sport sedan. The original SHO was as close as Ford came to a BMW like Taurus and it certainly was no BMW. It had its merits though. I just don't see where having a manual in today's world for this type of car is a good economical decision. Ford needs a Taurus that competes with the Camry and not a BMW wannabe, IMO.

Personally, I think if Ford tries to make the Taurus fill too many rolls it will have a greater chance of failure. They need a Camry killer and not a Camry/BMW killer. Toyota has the right idea for the Camry. It is a dependable, relatively capable, decently priced boring sedan. They give their customers looking for basic transportation exactly what they want. I believe most people aren't like you and I, they don't care if the car they buy will run with a BMW 5 series sedan. Ford needs a sedan that will sell 300,000 units annually which means it must appeal to the milk toast masses... not the enthusiasts AND the milk toast masses.

I agree 100% but they should never have killed the long time models like the Taurus, Thunderbird, Escort etc. in the first place. Funny how their demise started when they killed them off.

Pretty damn close for a grocery-getter family sedan isn't it? It's slightly de-tuned from the 1996-1999 figure of 71.67 Hp per liter, & quite capable of more.

But at what RPM are the Japenese cars getting those ratings? Toyota, Nissan, & Honda have to spin their 3.0 V-6's up over 6200 rpm to get that "rating". It's not apples-to-apples. And the Ford engine will deliver more peak power for longer durations than trying to keep a Honda spinning at 5800+ rpm all day long.

Rob

Correct. First it was not the base engine. Second it was designed by Yamaha. In fact, Yamaha was originally only supposed to redesign the head. But that existing American block was so bad that Yamaha had to restart the design; redesign the entire engine. Defective American block was why SHO was not ready when Taurus was first released in

1987.

Base engine in Ford Taurus was 51 Hp/liter even in 2005. A base engine must do 70 Hp per liter in early 1990s. High performance engines must be higher. Ford's high performance engine was only an average 73 Hp/liter. Well at least that is much better than GM. GM's supercharged engine is only 63 Hp/liter (when superchargers are suppose to do 100 Hp/liter). Why can GM sell that Chevy SS? Because too many Americans don't do the numbers. No wonder the sticker on the Chevy SS will not provide both liters and horsepower. You might do the arithmetic.

Understand what these numbers have been saying for 30 years. GM had a 70 Hp/liter engine ready for production in 1975. 20 years later, patriotic (innovative) auto companies had that technology in all cars. In 2000, neither GM nor Ford had 70 Hp/liter engines as base (minimum) models. As a result, both would be losing money - two extra pistons in every car only to be equivalent. Then the 'bean counters' shorted pension funds to claim profits. How do you know those two companies were anti-American? Their management refused to innovate.

70 Hp/liter is the damning number. Then these companies would blame unions, legacy costs - blame anything except top management that did not even drive and did not come from where the work gets done.

All those missing 70 Hp/liter engines are a symptom of corporate management that was the company's, the employee's, and America's enemy. They stifled innovation in the name of cost controls - what MBAs and lawyers do because they don't come from where the work gets done. Horsepower per liter simply summarizes the problem.

Look. GM North America was lead by a man whose entire experience was a 'bean counte'r. GM North America was losing money. GM International was lead by a man who came from where the work gets done. GM International was making a small profit. When Jack Smith retired, who did they promote? Louis Hughes who was making the small profit? Of course not. They promoted the 'bean counter' Rick Wagoner who was losing money in the world's most profitable auto market - North America. Why would GM do that? Some Americans so hate this country as to 'buy American'. Therefore GM kept making low performance engines and cars that cost more to build. A patriot, instead, believes in the free market and buys the best. That 'free market' attitude is what saved Ford Motor when we kicked out Henry Ford. We voted Henry Ford out by buying elsewhere. We therefore made possible the Taurus.

One simple number that determines who deserves our business - Horsepower per liter. At least Ford finally stopped selling pathetic

52 Hp/liter engines some 20 years too late. But the world has since moved on. Ford can either re-empower its 'car guys' (its innovators) or it does not deserve our business.

Meanwhile, only a fool buys GM's supercharged Chevy SS. A fool - someone who so hates America as to not buy using free market principles and who does not do simple arithmetic.

Nobody intentionally de-tunes an engine. Only myth purveyors promote those lies along with another classic myth - the 100 MPG carburetor. Auto companies put out the best they can do. Well Ford now has engines with late 1980 technology. That is an improvement. That indicates that William Clay finally liberated some engineering from the shackles of 'bean counters'.

Once the 5.0 liter Mustang was rated at 215 Hp. The naive then said Ford de-tuned it. Bull. Using statistical analysis, Ford realized that the engine they hoped would do 215 in production was not doing that. Therefore Ford "de-tuned" the number to a more accurate 205 Hp.

67 Hp per liter is the best Ford can currently do. Ford under Jacque Nasser was that stifled when Ford should have been doing then what Ford is only doing today. The terrorism of Jacque Nasser was terribly destructive to Fords quality and performance numbers. To Nasser, 50 Hp per liter engines were good enough. That is what 'bean counters' do.

Engines are intentionally detuned for both cost and marketing purposes. Cost reasons might be things like better materials or more costly processes to have that extra horsepower. A marketing purpose may be that the marketeers want the more expensive model to have a higher output engine than the less expensive model.

The horsepower figures themselves are marketing numbers. While it is wrong to over-rate an engine, under-rating it is perfectly acceptable practice. This could be done to lower insurance costs for a vehicle. It could be done to line things up the way the marketeers want them to be from model to model. It could be done to line things up for next years model or make it so that an older engine and newer engine don't appear dramatically different.

Basically, it's marketing, practically anything goes.

I don't know about the rest of the 91 stangs, they were rated at 225hp, I had mine dynoed, to see my base line, was rebuilding it to the nuts. It came out on the dyno just shy of 240hp's, in stock form.

The naive will then speculate - assume that a published number is intentionally lowered for marketing reasons. Wrong. Engineering reasons explain a concept taught in first year statistics - confidence level. If marketing says it does 225 Hp, then all must do 225 Hp ... or more. Again, this is a simple engineering concept. But like the 100 MPG carburetor, some just know without first learning these facts. Confidence level is but another example of why one first learns facts before falling for or promoting myths.

Meanwhile Ford in those 2007 cars is doing maybe late 1980 or 1990 technology. This is a major accomplishment from their pathetic 50+ Hp/ liter engines (GM also sells the same pathetic technology to the naive). The existence of a 67 Hp/liter engine (as a base engine) means somebody let 'car guys' design starting maybe four years ago. Therefore profits from that liberation may begin appearing years from now. Notice how long it takes innovation to appear on spread sheets. 'Bean counters' (also called communists) would fear you might learn this concept - if they even understood it.

Classic reason for a 52 Hp/liter engine in a 2005 car - 'bean counters' - the reason for stifled innovation, higher costs, no profits, 'blame the unions', lower reliability, 'legacy cost' myths, and so many other failures that fall under a category called anti- American.

67 Hp/liter suggests innovation is finally happening. 67 Hp/liter also says Ford has numerous mistakes to still correct - classic of any company run by a 'bean counter'.. Much of this is directly traceable to four years of destruction instituted by Jaques Nasser.

Notice how much later mistakes appear on spread sheets AND how long it takes for innovations to result in profits. A 'bean counter' who can cost control and show profits this year is promoted at the expense of innovators. Then he reaps large bonuses. Then that cost controlling results in losses many years later. So he blames the unions, unfair Japanese competition, the education system, taxes, and anything else to deflect blame from the man who stifled innovation. Appreciate how economics really works. 67 Hp/liter suggests someone in Ford is finally permitted to innovate - or at least do what the competition has been doing for over a decade.

225 Hp engine doing 240 Hp? Of course - once we learn what 'car guys' must know: confidence level. Only myth purveyors would cite marketing or 'detuning' for those different numbers. This is why successful companies promote from where the work gets done rather than promote lawyers, MBAs and communication majors. Successful companies need people who can innovate. That means coming from where the work gets done.

The original Henry Ford was a race car driver. He had 'dirt under his fingernails. The Henry Ford we removed in 1981 was classic of those also called communist. He was a MBA, knew nothing about the product, and stifled innovation. Learn why Henry Ford of the 1970s nearly bankrupt Ford Motor. Learn why the 67 Hp/liter number tells us so much.

Well, I know as fact, most engines produced are detuned, purely for economic and longevity reasons. I worked in a vehicle manufacturing plant, and sure we could make these engines squirt out 1000 hps. cost and longevity are the only reasons we did so. Warranty claims would sky rocket on such engines.