Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon

And you make liberals look bad - mark my words. I'd be embarrassed to have you on my side. But fortunately that's not the case. Liberals that hang out here are probably cringing with embarrassment.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Wow - a liberal that listens to Michael Savage. Strange combination.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

That's about the dumbest analogy I've read in a long time

I don't exactly buy that, either. Many US cars was very reliable as far back as the 1950s, although they needed considerably more routine maintenance (short term oil and lube intervals, for one) than modern lubrication technology needs today.

One case comes to mind from that era, from Cadillac Motor Division. The Barr-Cole OHV engine which used all the basic engine design tenets of "Boss" Kettering laid out in the late 1930s, introduced in 1949 to the market, was the most efficient automotive power plant yet devised anywhere in the world at the time. With proper maintenance, it would easily also turn in a quarter million miles without having its heads off, despite its lightweight construction. Teamed with the indestructable HydraMatic transmission, this power plant simply did not have an equal anywhere in the world for years, and 1949-1955 Cadillacs became increasingly known for Rolls-Royce-like reliability and durability.

Then, someone at GM decided that it was time to retire the old HydraMatic and come up with one with smoother shifting and a cheaper-to-produce and lighter aluminum case...as well as somewhat decreased efficiency. The result was the Dual Coupling HydraMatic of

After some "screwing around" in 1957 and '58 to try to ameliorate these problems due to customer complaints (and defections to Chrysler and Ford), by 1959 these cars were once again more reliable, with the aforementioned problems cured with "work-arounds" such as bigger radiators, clutch drive fans, a valve body redesign and bypass type fuel pumps. Meanwhile, down in the low end of the market in 1957, Chevrolet Division unleashed one of the worst automatic transmissions ever devised (aside from the Packard Ultramatic), the Chevy "Turboglide," again another move to increase retail cost and decrease efficiency. Hydrokinetic torque multipliers are cheaper to produce than quality planetary gearsets, and that, plus lower fuel economy, was the goal. When the president of Buick Division was interviewed about the horrid showing of a Dynaflow-equipped (no gear reduction, but a huge 5 element torque converter similar to the Turboglide) Buick Super in the 1958 Mobil Economy Run (8 MPG average!), his reply, which was later denied by GM top brass, was, "Well...we have to keep our oil company friends happy!"

So, reliable, efficient cars have been around, at least in the US, much longer than since 1980. There's considerable evidence that many of the reliability problems of cars after the post-war engineering bonanza were purposely done to increase service income, fuel consumption and "trade ins." In 1971, GM launched its "less car for more money" campaign, wherein GM car lines were cheapened throughout, but retail prices were boosted. Ex-GM executives, notably John De Lorean, have admitted to this for years, and any examination of 1971 full-sized GM cars tells the tale easily. Thus, the "reliable car" has been around for awhile...until management chicanery prevents it from being so on a routine basis. It should also be noted that De Lorean wasn't innocent of engineering screw-ups himself...he was responsible for THE worst automatic transmission ever made, the Ultramatic, while an engineer at Packard in 1947. His transmission helped tank Packard by late 1955.

However, over in the UK, other forces were at work to prevent reliable automobiles...mostly engineering incompetence, and that's a whole different story!

The conventional wisdom is that Detroit has a quality "perception" problem. The reality is that they have a quality problem, period. Ford, GM and Chrysler have always looked to Madison Avenue to solve their sales problems instead of addressing the fundamental problem which is crummy cars that don't last very long and require a lot of repairs.

The problem cannot be fixed because mediocrity and denial is ingrained in their corporate culture. It's ingrained in management, engineering and the production line. It's everywhere. They have no more chance of fixing their problem than a 60-year-old, fat lady has of becoming a sexy, 18-year-old, rock star.

That is entirely correct.

The reality is that they have a quality problem, period. Ford,

All automakers have fallen in and out of that trap from time to time. GM, which many people automatically equate to "all American cars" has certainly been guilty of that for most of its post-WWII existence. Everything from selling a splash-oiled inline 6 well into the 1950s, to the TH200 transmission debacle of the 80s, to the DexCool fiasco of the

About as good a synopsis of American business in general, let alone the auto industry, as I've seen in quite awhile. Thanks to fathead management, US industry as a whole is sinking into third world status.

It is a curiosity that British-owned manufacturers are hopeless at producing cars profitably in larger quantities (and hence have disappeared), and yet southern and central England is the home of that cottage industry of kit cars and world-class racing, incl Indy.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

The British have never been adept at mass production of anything. Rather, their forte has always been, and will always be, custom hand worked items of exceptional quality, as the aforementional race cars show continually. It's this seemingly genetic trait that made a Rolls a Rolls for decades...the impeccable quality of hand fitting and unsurpassed workmanship.

This makes me appreciate my FluidDrive even more! I wish that Chrysler would come back with that one, gives me the option of clutching or not!

I had a girlfriend in my late teens who always drove Grandma's '53 De Soto with Fluid Drive on dates, so I know that box a little bit. Like anything with Chrysler transmissions, it seemed to be troublefree. I remember it had very nice black and white paint and a HUGE back seat.

I never did get a convincing bit of data about which two speed was better overall...Powerflite or Chevy's lousy "Powerslide." Seems every '55 and '56 Chrysler product I ever came across with Powerflite never had any troubles, either.

Before I got my 1940 Royal coupe, I had a 49 Windsor sedan with FluidDrive. It was the dual-range, two lower speeds, two high speeds. Always kept it in high range, just required me to lift my foot and a little "clunk" and I was good to go. It was a little slow off the mark, considering that the Windsor weighed in at over 4,000 lbs.! but it sure was smooth! My Grandfather had a 51 Dodge with FluidDrive and I don't think he ever used the clutch except to get started initially!

The problem with Fluid Drive in the era of HydraMatic, Fordomatic and Powerslide, was that in order to use the transmission to best advantage, one had to have half a brain. Certain people don't like to think, and those are the ones who thought poorly of Fluid Drive, I'm sure. I remember as a kid a niece of my grandaunt drove a '54 Savoy (lemon yellow with white top as I remember) from Lincoln, NE to Riverside, CA, with Fluid Drive. I remember sitting in the front room, listening to the conversation about how she wouldn't trade her Plymouth for anything from GM, even a Cadillac!

I can't remember the details, but evidently the flathead six in the Plymouth had turned in very respectable fuel economy on that trip. She and her mother DID complain, quite a bit, about those awful moutain grades coming out west, though! Years later, when I had my first car, a 1950 Ford Fordor Custom my dad had bought new off the assembly line at the old Long Beach, CA plant, I wondered why the Ford V8, at 100 HP, produced less power and ate more gas than the Chrysler flattie sixes. My Ford would be hard pressed to turn in 16 on the road, while similar Plymouths would easily get 19 or more. Hell, Ford's OWN 6 for

Where the heck have you been ? GM just offered a 100,000 mile 5-year guarantee on all their cars- didn't you see the ads ?

Are you saying Toyota and Nissan are better cars ?? That's a laugh ! You actually prefer those plastic shitboxes ?

the dumb ass who made the OP failed to say, Ford went to #3 in sales, and Toyota is #2 now in USA- which is understandable since they have many plants here in the USA now.

False, not all cars. Not only that, it's a very exclusive "power train warranty." Even Hyundai has a better warrany.

They seem to be. Look at the sales figures.

You're a laugh.

GM cars lately ARE "plastic shitboxes." Look at your wife's Potty-tank....that's a plastic shitbox if there ever was one.

We were talking about US BASED automarkers, the "Big 3"...idiot, who cannot read.

Typical church nutter rightard.

as usual, someone didn't do their homework.

Nissan isn't even in the running, they are so small.

Chrysler would have to surpass Ford and VW to get to #3, that ain't gonna happen.

GM kicks all their asses.

Ford is bigger than Honda and Nissan PUT TOGETHER.

So much for "taking a dive"- it's all relative- Ford can still eat any Japper shitbox company for lunch in the corp. sense- Ford bought and owns Mazda.

As usual, Charlie Nudo of Drums, PA only uses sources that back his erroneous position. Wikipedia is for chumps like you, Noodles, since all the contributors are morons like yourself.

Next time, get a REAL source. Read Bloomberg's or the WSJ, if you want to talk about business, or the NY or LA Times Biz sections.