Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: brian devendorf <(email redacted)>



Looking at Ford's new model lineup, I'm starting to get depressed.
About the only thing they're still leading the indusrty in is full size
trucks and vans.

Small cars-

Escort loses big time to new Cavalier and Neon powerwise, refinement wise
and (i've ridden in both and theyre nicer, i have to admit)

Contour/Mystique- By no means inferior to the competition but at the same
time not a standout, especially where styling is concerned

Performance- *ouch* this is the worst one. The Mustang gets soundly
trounced by the Cam#*%s in all categories other than (IMHO)
styling. Lucky for us chrysler no longer cares about having a
ponycar entry

Midsize- The taurus and lumina are comprable, however unless the new
taurus is 100 times better looking in 3-d than pics they're gonna
have a tough time movin em i think

fullsize- Not even funny... the crown Vic does soundly beat the LHS etc
(RWD, V-8, full frame)
but the LT1 powered GMs are another story...

mini trucks- the 4.3 and 318s take the cake i'm afraid...

why doesnt ford LT1ize the modular? ~200 hp is pretty dismal for a 4.6,
even with 2 valve heads... if they had a nice ~260-275 horse engine for
hte crown vics, trucks, and low-cost mustangs. By LT1 ize i mean improve
the intake/exh ports, intake, exhause manifolds, optimize cam timing and
acessory/ignition systems.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Roberto Arturo Schafer <(email redacted)>

> styling. Lucky for us chrysler no longer cares about having a
> ponycar entry

While I tend to agree with most of this. I can't let this go. It is in
no way lucky for us that Chrysler does not have anything comparable to a
Mustang or Camaro. Do you think Ford would bother with performance if
there were no Camaros? Too bad Ford doesn't have anything comparable to
the Corvette and/or the Viper. On the other hand GM wasn't doing to well
with some of the more expensive model Corvettes. In fact, it seems Ford
is doing better financially than GM. And that of course is the ultimate
bottom line, like it or not.

> but the LT1 powered GMs are another story...

Well GM is supposedly going to quit making the RWD big cars in a year or
two. If they do, it sure as hell isn't because they are making profits
hand over fist with them.

> mini trucks- the 4.3 and 318s take the cake i'm afraid...

Well, I'd rather have the Dakota than the Ranger. Ranger's have a cab
that is about 2 inches too small for me in length. Either I got the
seat back at the right angle (I had a GT) or the leg length right. Never
both. On the other hand the Dakota seemed so much larger, even though it
really wasn't. Not that the Ranger is a bad truck mind you. But it is
more on the "mini" end than the "mid" end of the spectrum.

Rob

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Gordon Laird HP ICBD CDC (415) 857-7247 <(email redacted)>

brian devendorf laments:
> Looking at Ford's new model lineup, I'm starting to get depressed.
> why doesnt ford LT1ize the modular?

I think I know the answer. I used to own an '85 Crap-i H.O., and before
that monster completely consumed my maintanence budget, I bought an '89
Cougar XR-7 (supercharged). Now, after a longer term experience with both
vehicles, I have discovered that Ford does not employ automotive engineers.
It seems that the entire company is populated with marketing types.
As Ford explored the regions of 'adequate' performance, they never bothered
to upgrade any other components on their vehicles other than the dyno
results from the engines. On both cars, I have/had completely rebuilt every
single drive train component except the long block. On the Crap-i, it came
out of my pocket. But, I got my revenge. I bought a 6/60 warranty on the
Cougar. No exaggeration, Ford has rebuilt my Cougar to the tune of about
$6000-$7000, nearly for free ($25 deductible). New supercharger, new
transmission, new differential, new valve cover gaskets, new electronic mirror,
new fuel system gauges/instruments, & new brakes.
So, for really depressing news, study the test results for the new Fords.
Rather that engineer a real performance car, it seems Ford has elected to
put govenors on their cars. I suppose their strategy is, if they don't
let their customers push the vehicles hard enough to break them, no one will
ever know that Ford is simply recycling engineering done for the Maverick and
Pinto.

One last note. I bought a '93 Jimmy from the trade in of the Crap-i. I'm
considering the Camaro as a replacement for the Cougar.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: The Lone Maverick <(email redacted)>


On Thu, 4 May 1995, Gordon Laird HP ICBD CDC (415) 857-7247 wrote:
> let their customers push the vehicles hard enough to break them, no one will
> ever know that Ford is simply recycling engineering done for the Maverick and
> Pinto.

Hey, No cheap shots on Mavericks! =) I'd take my `73 maverick over your
cougar anyday!

To add substance to this, I'd like to point out that there are advantages
to that old engineering proverb "Keep is simple stupid" (KISS) or perhaps
a more appropriate ford motto "Keep it stupid Simple." Yes, I replace my
starter motor every 4 years, but my 302 is still going strong. Ford has
recycled this simple, reliable design, and bastardized it with do hickies
and add ons to make a motor that breaks down far too often. The same can
be said of amny functions of the car. Government regulations do have
much to do with this, but still you think they could design something to
either be A) reliable or easy and cheap to fix. (starter motor)

Ford quality needs to improve much before I'm ready to trade in my Mav.

-simon

wwwww
g( o 0 )g
- ----oOO--(_)---OOo--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Dodd
(email redacted) Oregon State University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
.ooo0 0ooo.
( ) ( ) The Lone Maverick
- ------\ (---) /-----------------------------------------------------------
\_) (_/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Robert King)

> > Looking at Ford's new model lineup, I'm starting to get depressed.
> > why doesnt ford LT1ize the modular?
>
> I think I know the answer. I used to own an '85 Crap-i H.O., and before
> that monster completely consumed my maintanence budget, I bought an '89
> Cougar XR-7 (supercharged). Now, after a longer term experience with both
> vehicles, I have discovered that Ford does not employ automotive engineers.
> It seems that the entire company is populated with marketing types.
> As Ford explored the regions of 'adequate' performance, they never bothered
> to upgrade any other components on their vehicles other than the dyno
> results from the engines. On both cars, I have/had completely rebuilt every
> single drive train component except the long block. On the Crap-i, it came
> out of my pocket. But, I got my revenge. I bought a 6/60 warranty on the
> Cougar. No exaggeration, Ford has rebuilt my Cougar to the tune of about
> $6000-$7000, nearly for free ($25 deductible). New supercharger, new
> transmission, new differential, new valve cover gaskets, new electronic mirror,
> new fuel system gauges/instruments, & new brakes.

I'm sorry to hear that, but that doesn't jive with my experiences. I've
owned an '85 GT and I currently own an '88 GT. I drove the '85 from 20,000
miles to 120,000 miles and the '88 I got with 30,000 miles on it and I now
have over 187,000 miles on it.

Lord knows neither one was driven easily, but I never EVER had any
problems with components wearing out of failing under normal use (apart from
two water pumps (one on each car,) and a starter on the '88.)

I will come clean and say the T-5 in the '88 has been replaced twice. The
first time under warrently at 45k miles because the previous owner ran the
transmission dry, and the second time the car was stolen and the thieves
trashed it. With 187,000 miles on the car, my '88 runs and drives like a
dream.

I'm a firm believer that how you care for and maintain a car is at
least as important as how well its engineered.

- -- Robert King


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert A. King | |
| Systems Software Engineer | "Dulce et decorum est en |
| Kodak Health Imaging Systems | medio coitu mori" |
| (email redacted) | -- Nelson Rockefeller |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The opinions expressed here ain't even mine, much less my employer's! |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Roberto Arturo Schafer <(email redacted)>

> starter motor every 4 years, but my 302 is still going strong. Ford has

It amazes me that people think this kind of stuff is normal. It is not.
You are either using some low quality rebuilds, or there is a problem
with the engagement of the starter. Starters should easily last until
the engine breaths its last. Naturally this will vary with how often you
start the car and so on, but never the less, I've done only three or four
starters on my Fords (with high mileage and age). And one of those I
can't blame Ford because the car sat in a foot of water overnight in the
middle of nowhere. Got help the next day when the runoff had frozen
enough to drive our second car around the now frozen in place Mustang!
But that's another story.

Rob

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Roberto Arturo Schafer <(email redacted)>

> new fuel system gauges/instruments, & new brakes.

Too bad that you have had so much bad luck. But putting loyalties
aside. GM has had a much worse time with reliablility. In fact I think
Fords do very well. That is speaking from experience. Frankly the
problem is not with the cars. It is with the incompetence found at most
dealers in repairing the cars. Even if you find a good technician, the
service writers never write down the symptoms you tell them.
Consequently the technician doesn't find a problem.

My father's girlfriend bitched to everyone she could get a hold of at
FOMOCO, threatening the lemon law and so on. The dealer couldn't fix
her Probe's AC after numerous tries. Now at some point the dealer should
have just replaced all the mechanical components and flushed the system.
Even if the parts looked ok. But no.... So in the end Ford bought the
car back at the original purchase price AND sold her a new T-bird at
FOMOCO employee cost (not "dealer" cost).

> ever know that Ford is simply recycling engineering done for the Maverick and
> Pinto.

I see plenty of pre-73 Pintos and Mavericks plugging along still. They
are driven by people of little means, so they aren't getting much TLC.
That to me says that the cars were damn good cars. Don't see that many
Vegas around do you? But in defense of GM, there are a lot of Camaros
and Novas still plugging along. How many pre-73 Japanese cars do you
see? They sold plenty in California. Maybe when new the Japanese built
the cars to better quality standards. But I would rather buy a sloppily
painted tank, than a perfect wooden car. (Ok, I exaggerate.)


Rob

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: murpda00 <(email redacted)>

Following up on Robert King's response, I would have to side with him on
the issue of our Explorer. We have had a couple of quirky bugs in it like
the shift linkage pin in the tranny that "fell out" in the first month and
then the faulty power lumbar seats in our Eddie Bauer. But aside from
that, the truck has done its job and then some, especially in 4WD in
Saline Valley and a prom night experience that I don't need to explain too
much further. Sure, it's not a 195-hp Vortec or a 318 Eight, but there's
plenty of torque and none of the tranny drone of the GM. The low noise
level and the mileage is great, and the overall paint and build quality
are good. It may not be a real looker like the 4Runner or the Trooper, but
it'll outperform them (on the street) and doesn't have all the gimmicky
add-ons like those other trucks.
So there.
Dan

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "R. Hasson" <(email redacted)>

On Thu, 4 May 1995, Roberto Arturo Schafer wrote:

> It amazes me that people think this kind of stuff is normal. It is not.
> You are either using some low quality rebuilds, or there is a problem
> with the engagement of the starter. Starters should easily last until
> the engine breaths its last. Naturally this will vary with how often you
> Rob
The service life on any part depends so much on the opperating
conditions that the definition of "normal" is blurred. I'm surprised
starters in general last as long as they do. High compression, reluctant
engine, hot underhood temperatures, dusty environs. etc. will accelerate
wear on a part such as this and can make a 4 year service life look
pretty good.
Thanks,
Randy

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: The Lone Maverick <(email redacted)>

On Thu, 4 May 1995, Roberto Arturo Schafer wrote:

> > starter motor every 4 years, but my 302 is still going strong. Ford has
>
> It amazes me that people think this kind of stuff is normal. It is not.
> You are either using some low quality rebuilds, or there is a problem

The comment was not made as an acurate picture of what happens with my
car, but as a generalization that certain parts wear out... and if you
have the car long enough, you begin to replace parts multiple times.

"My tires are bald ALREADY? I *JUST* put new ones on a little while
ago". After digging though your records you realize that your 50,000
mile tires lasted 60,000 miles and YES, its time to replace them again.
Starter motor was an example because I did just replace it and I remeber
the last time because I had to do it in a parking lot in the middle of
nowhere on a cold and rainy day.

The orignal post talked about a Cougar that had is supercarger replaced.
Obviously a new car shouldn't have to have that done... but eventually
down the road, even a supercharger wears out. Sure, engineers need to
try and design pieces that wear out, are easy to replace, and are
inexpensive. (ie bushings.)

My point is Ford needs to try a little harder to DESIGN instead of cast
the first idea that comes into their heads. Believe me, there are FAR
too many decisions made in any engineering industry, soley on a "gut
feel". Sometimes its right, other times superchargers screw up after 15
miles.

Keep it simple Stupid.

Far too much said... sorry.

-simon

wwwww
g( o 0 )g
- ----oOO--(_)---OOo--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Dodd
(email redacted) Oregon State University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
.ooo0 0ooo.
( ) ( ) The Lone Maverick
- ------\ (---) /-----------------------------------------------------------
\_) (_/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)


> Too bad that you have had so much bad luck. But putting loyalties
> aside. GM has had a much worse time with reliablility. In fact I think
> Fords do very well. That is speaking from experience. Frankly the
> problem is not with the cars. It is with the incompetence found at most
> dealers in repairing the cars. Even if you find a good technician, the
> service writers never write down the symptoms you tell them.
> Consequently the technician doesn't find a problem.


> Rob

I agree here totally. I had an electrical problem with my 91 Escort GT. I
had power to all my accessories but the car would not start. It was towed into
the dealership 7 times before I found the problem. Every time it was at the
dealership it was fine. The problem turned out to be the wiring harness to the
fuse box on the inside of the car. Other than that the car saw oil changes at
6000-9000 intervals(synthetic) had brakes and tires only over 3 years and 72000
miles. The car saw one fender bender and survived a hail storm during that time
and still ran like it rolled off the Showroom floor. Everything was fixed under
the 3/36 bumper to bumper. Oh, there was one other thing, My catalytic converter
kicked the bucket also again replaced under warrantee. Prior to the Escort, we
owned a 79 Mercury Monarch and an 84 Mercury Marquis and had similiar records
service records. OTOH, my mother had a company car (87 Chevy Celebrity Eurosport)
that the computer died the 2nd day she had it. I picked her up in my 66 Stang.

Scott D.
93 5-speed

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)


> why doesnt ford LT1ize the modular? ~200 hp is pretty dismal for a 4.6,
> even with 2 valve heads...

How is 200 dismal when it was not until 86 that the 5.0 broke 200 and currently
puts out 215. Don't forget that the engine has not been put down in a car to
be used as a performance engine yet (with exception to the DOHC 4V version in
the Lincoln Mark VIII rated it at 280 hp). It has been in the Crown Vic and
the T-bird and the Crown Vic does not have a performance version and the
top-line T-bird is the SC.

if they had a nice ~260-275 horse engine for
> hte crown vics, trucks, and low-cost mustangs.

That engine exists... 5.7L

By LT1 ize i mean improve
> the intake/exh ports, intake, exhause manifolds, optimize cam timing and
> acessory/ignition systems.

Who is to say that Ford has not done that already and is waiting to spring it
on the General?

Just another $.02

Scott D.
93 SHO 5-speed

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)

(email redacted) writes:

>>It amazes me that people think this kind of stuff is normal. It is not.
You are either using some low quality rebuilds, or there is a problem
with the engagement of the starter. Starters should easily last until
the engine breaths its last. <<

Keep in mind that the application may vary - or more specifically - I had
this problem too - with my 67 Cougar and _full length headers_. I would
agree with you , on a stock engine, but once you wrap a header right around
the starter, it can go a lot faster.

Plus, on a Maverick -if it's anything like my Cougar was - the starter is a
relatively easy job and not too expensive for a rebuilt model.

-Tom