Ford takes a dive, DC will be #2 soon

There are absolutely so signs of progress. We may be in it for the long
haul but there has got to be a different approach than the one Bush is
taking which is staying the course.


"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Art wrote:
>
>> The saddest part is GW is determined to leave his mess to the next
>> president to clean up.
>
> No, the saddest part is that so many head-in-the-sand types of all
> political persuasions don't see that what is going on NEEDS to be done.
> Its not fun, its not pretty, it IS a mess, but its the right thing to do
> and its going to take a consistent effort by *several* presidents and
> congresses over the next 20-plus years to make the world a reasonably safe
> and free place. I think anyone with a brain realized that things were
> going to go this way by no later than 5 PM on 9/11/01. We're in it for the
> long haul.
>
>

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:57:12 GMT, "Art"
> wrote:

>There are absolutely so signs of progress. We may be in it for the long
>haul but there has got to be a different approach than the one Bush is
>taking which is staying the course. <snip>

WHAT "course?" All he's doing is doing things differently from Daddy
Bush to show him who's boss. This clown will displace the likes of
Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore and William McKinley in the "Worst
President Ever" derby, mark my word.

DeserTBoB wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:57:12 GMT, "Art"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>There are absolutely so signs of progress. We may be in it for the long
>>haul but there has got to be a different approach than the one Bush is
>>taking which is staying the course. <snip>
>
>
> WHAT "course?" All he's doing is doing things differently from Daddy
> Bush to show him who's boss. This clown will displace the likes of
> Warren G. Harding, Millard Fillmore and William McKinley in the "Worst
> President Ever" derby, mark my word.

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')

DeserTBoB wrote:

> ..."sheeple."

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')

Bill Putney wrote:
> DeserTBoB wrote:
>
> > ..."sheeple."
>
> Wow - a liberal that listens to Michael Savage. Strange combination.

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

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:19:12 +0100, "Dori A Schmetterling"
> wrote:

>Regarding a "reliable" that is my point. At some stage maybe 20/25 years ago
>the age of the reliable car began. <snip>

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
1956, as big a disaster as any in those days. Many other engineering
screw-ups happened in GM senior cars in '56, especially those of
Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Cadillac divisions using the new transmission.
While engines were increased in displacement and compression ratio to
win their respective "horsepower races," radiator sizes remained the
same. Also, an oil cooler, not needed on the pre-war HydraMatic, had
to be added because of designed-in fluid coupling slippage. The
higher compression, larger displacement and transmission heat load
caused 1956 GM cars from these divisions to be well known
"overheaters" on the road, along with vapor locking and other bad
behavior.

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!

Art wrote:
> What I can't understand about Ford and GM and even Chrysler, before giving
> everything up and firing a huge number of employees, why not address the
> quality issue by offering a free extended bumper to bumper service agreement
> with each new car sold. . .

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.

wrote:
> Art wrote:
>
>>What I can't understand about Ford and GM and even Chrysler, before giving
>>everything up and firing a huge number of employees, why not address the
>>quality issue by offering a free extended bumper to bumper service agreement
>>with each new car sold. . .
>
>
> The conventional wisdom is that Detroit has a quality "perception"
> problem.

That is entirely correct.

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.

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
00's, GM has screwed it up. OTOH, Ford has only slipped into the trap
very occasionally, and Chrysler almost never (rushing the 4-speed
electronic transmission to production too early in 1989 being a notable
exception). Mercedes has pretty well avoided it, although the M-class
fiasco did show a weakness. Nissan lived most of the late 90s in a
state of dependence of clever advertizing and wretched product, and as a
result no longer exist as an independent company (part of Renault now).
Ditto for Saab (owned by GM- no help there!) and Volvo (a Ford product
now). Toyota has flirted with it as well, taking far too long to
acknowledge poor engineering and pretending that people will buy
anything if it falls under the "Toyota quality aura."

On 17 Sep 2006 16:53:59 -0700, wrote:

>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. <snip>

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
---

"DeserTBoB" > wrote in message
...
[...]

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