[[Template core/front/global/utilitiesMenu does not exist. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]
ranma

Ford to Only sell two cars other than their pickup's/suv

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, oldcarfan said:

"I gotta agree with Bill J's comment quoted in the above post, even though I can't think of a condition where FWD is an advantage.  I have never owned a FWD car as my daily driver, and never will."    I was stationed in Virginia for years while in the Navy. I drove front and rear wheel drive vehicles. People always talk about FWD as being better in the snow. That's not true. FWD will understeer in the snow and RWD will oversteer in the snow. Oversteer is easier to bring under control. Where FWD has an advantage is in the manufacturing process. The builder can put an engine and tranny together and slap it in as a unit much easier than a RWD one. It's easier to package.

Not so much with the original FWD cars of the '60's (Eldorado and Toronado), but certainly true of the cars they foisted on us starting with the 1980 "X" body cars of GM. IMO, that was the dark days of the industry fully upon us as they way too quickly adopted that form of car architecture, and they've never truly gotten away from it.

The cars are MUCH better today though than those dark days of the early '80's, but I can see why folks have gravitated towards trucks. They ARE the the full size "cars" they no longer make, which is a form of rejection I think of what the public DOESN'T want.......namely the small, cramped econoboxes which I don't want myself anytime.

Edited by MrObsessive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they stop making cars does that still Qualify them for NASCAR ???


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, milo1303s said:

If they stop making cars does that still Qualify them for NASCAR ???


 

They will have the Mustang name next year in the Monster Energy series...(already in use in the Xfinity series). 

Edited by Rob Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2018 at 10:49 AM, Ace-Garageguy said:

I've loved my share of Fords over the years, but the last one I drove, a brand new rental Fiesta (in 2015), felt unnecessarily heavy, rode like an old truck, and didn't handle particularly well. Of course, it had all kinds of useless "tech" bells and whistles that have absolutely NOTHING to do with actual driving.

I don't know how much was lost in translation from European to American but that was entirely different from the 2010 Fiesta 1.4 I had: light, no-frill little car that was fun to drive.  Not a lot of power but with sharp steering, responsive chassis and a nice, firm ride.  Mine didn't even have that mobile phone inspired infotainment system, just the basic radio with USB input, but boy was it a fun little car.  Sold it to my friend 5 years ago and they are still loving it to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2018 at 8:37 PM, Ace-Garageguy said:

As far as oil goes, the writing has been on the wall in big red neon letters since the early 1970s, and anyone with a semblance of a functioning brain should have realized it was a finite resource when the first oil well was drilled in 1859.

But typical foot-dragging, head-in-the-sand humans have yet to get an electric grid in place that's capable of recharging the projected number of electric vehicles on the horizon, and many projections of electric vehicles' impact on the power grid are simply unrealistic.

The widespread ignorance and unfounded beliefs as to the benefits of all-electric vehicles is staggering...even among many so-called "experts".

Many studies are based on erroneous scenarios, and most consumers fail to realize that generating all the electricity necessary to recharge millions of cars will have to come from sources not currently available. Burning MORE coal and natural gas (which still releases carbon into the atmosphere), or building nuclear plants. Some hydro sources for electricity, like Hoover Dam, are drastically reduced now in the power they can generate, due to dramatically falling water levels.

There's a LOT of work to be done if electric vehicles are going to replace the current petro-fuelled fleet, and there's far more gibbering than actual progress towards making the necessary changes reality.

https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/study-electric-vehicle-charging-present-grid-challenges/

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/01/how-many-electric-cars-can-the-grid-take-depends-on-your-neighborhood/

This has always been an anathema to me.  Even here in "eco friendly" California, two thirds of the electricity we use comes from burning fossil fuels.  I see people spending a hundred thousand on a new top of the line Telsa and driving around shouting about how they are saving the planet with "zero emissions".  Ballony!  Unless you plug that thing into solar panels on your roof, you are still polluting!  Electric cars are simply pollution transfer devises.  After they are done with them, then you have a problem with disposing of the heavy metals in the batteries.  Yes there are better solutions on the horizon and but they are not here yet.  The problem with Ford is that they are not looking to the future.  The bean counters that run the companies are looking to the here and now.  We have few people with that "long term view" running our companies.  At least I have to give Elon Musk credit for being the head of a company with his eyes on the future.  Imagine what Ford could do with him at the helm!  

Edited by Pete J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete, Ford is looking at their future. Red ink in every Sedan Sales tally tells them that for good reasons or bad, consumers are not buying their cars in great enough numbers to be profitable. So, The Sedans morph into 'tall wagons' or CUVs and Ford goes all in on trucks and bigger SUVs. I'll predict that General Motors goes this way too, in  a couple of years. Their sedans sell in even worse numbers that Ford's do. As a group we can decry the change, but it appears that the Ford CEO, is moving the company is a direction he judges will ultimately be successful. And realize that this is in essence a group judgment. Nothing in the Ford Motor Company happens on the CEO's whim anymore. Many,Many people had input on this. I wager that this change has been in the planning stages for a couple years, at least. I see this as a good direction. Given my aging knees, it is far easier to get up into my Kia Sorento, and slide out, than it was to twist down into my Hyundai Elantra, and lift myself back out. I'll never have another car again. (well maybe another 1965 New Yorker...)  It will be boxy, useful haulers from here on out. They may be simple 'appliance' cars, but my days of wanting a 'Cool Car" are about over with. I want vast utility, decent mileage, and Ice Cold A/C. Style just doesn't factor in anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: Oil discussion, renewable resource.

Devil' advocate. Would it be stirring it up too much to argue that oil IS a renewable resource? That oIl and gas are a naturally occurring phenomenon, the earth just keeps on producing it. And that we're in no danger of ever running out? 

I'n not saying I believe it, but google that theory. It's real, and there are may real scientists that are on board. I find the Indra fascinating.

Would be great, because we'll need all of that oil and gas to produce enough electricity to power the grid needed to sustain electric cars. I brought that up in another thread recently.

 

But anyway, back to the discussion. I don't think it's been brought up yet, but FCA already did this car purge from their lineup. The only cars they have left across all brands are the Charger/Challenger/300, the Alfa Guilia, and the Fiat 500. Everything else was dumped a couple of years ago. So this whole Ford thing is really no big surprise when you think about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, iamsuperdan said:

RE: Oil discussion, renewable resource.

Devil' advocate. Would it be stirring it up too much to argue that oil IS a renewable resource? That oIl and gas are a naturally occurring phenomenon, the earth just keeps on producing it. And that we're in no danger of ever running out? 

I'n not saying I believe it, but google that theory. It's real, and there are may real scientists that are on board. I find the Indra fascinating.

Would be great, because we'll need all of that oil and gas to produce enough electricity to power the grid needed to sustain electric cars. I brought that up in another thread recently.

It's an interesting idea, but there's much contradictory info out there. For instance, "non-bio" oil is purported to be found at extreme depths. The Russians supposedly claimed in 1956 to be taking "non-bio" oil from 30,000 to 40,000 foot-deep wells, but according to widely published records, the Russians didn't reach 40,226 feet until 1994, at the Kola Superdeep Borehole...NOT AN OIL WELL. AND...they found fossil remains of life at those incredible depths.

In 2011, Exxon Neftegas hit 40,604 with the Z-44 Chayvo well. Far as I know, what THEY found is more-or-less standard biomass petroleum.

Constantly "renewing" oil? I doubt it, but I'll keep an open mind until there's a body of verifiable scientific evidence either way.

In the meantime, It's getting MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE to retrieve oil, and at the current rate of consumption, it is NOT a sustainable situation.

The technology HAS EXISTED for some time to run cars on hydrogen, with either fuel-cells or internal-combustion power. This hydrogen can be made simply and sustainably by solar-powered rooftop units converting wastewater...but does anybody really do anything about it? Honda proved the feasibility in the 1990s, but you don't hear much today.

Kind of makes you wonder who's driving the bus, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

It's an interesting idea, but there's much contradictory info out there. For instance, "non-bio" oil is purported to be found at extreme depths. The Russians supposedly claimed in 1956 to be taking "non-bio" oil from 30,000 to 40,000 foot-deep wells, but according to widely published records, the Russians didn't reach 40,226 feet until 1994, at the Kola Superdeep Borehole...NOT AN OIL WELL. AND...they found fossil remains of life at those incredible depths.

In 2011, Exxon Neftegas hit 40,604 with the Z-44 Chayvo well. Far as I know, what THEY found is more-or-less standard biomass petroleum.

Constantly "renewing" oil? I doubt it, but I'll keep an open mind until there's a body of verifiable scientific evidence either way.

In the meantime, It's getting MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE to retrieve oil, and at the current rate of consumption, it is NOT a sustainable situation.

The technology HAS EXISTED for some time to run cars on hydrogen, with either fuel-cells or internal-combustion power. This hydrogen can be made simply and sustainably by solar-powered rooftop units converting wastewater...but does anybody really do anything about it? Honda proved the feasibility in the 1990s, but you don't hear much today.

Kind of makes you wonder who's driving the bus, doesn't it?

Well the earth is constantly creating oil from biomass.  It just takes hundreds of thousands of years to do it and we ain't got that long!  By the way one of the dumb things people think is that it is dinosaure bodys that decompose into coal and oil.  Probably from the old Sinclair oil mascot.  It is actually the biomass of deep rain forests and swamps that decomposes into oil.  So someday Florida will be the next Saudi Arabia for oil.  

As to hydrogen, we have to overcome the "Hindenburg" effect.  People envision massive explosions at accidents when in reality hydrogen is no more dangerous in an accident  than the natural gas or LP  powered vehicles we are currently running.  To that end, Toyota is already leasing hydrogen/fuel cell cars on the roads of SoCal.  They also have refueling stations.  Take a look. https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/fcv.html

Edited by Pete J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honda is also developing hydrogen vehicles. I believe a Honda Clarity hydrogen powered car is already on sale in California as well. To me this is the way to go not all these electric cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, iamsuperdan said:

RE: Oil discussion, renewable resource.

Devil' advocate. Would it be stirring it up too much to argue that oil IS a renewable resource? That oIl and gas are a naturally occurring phenomenon, the earth just keeps on producing it. And that we're in no danger of ever running out? 

 

Well, it took 100,000,000 years to create the oil that we have extracted from the planet in the last 100 years. That's a 1,000,000 : 1 ratio. If, as a planet of consumers, we can reduce our oil consumption rate to 1 millionth of the average consumption rate of the last 100 years (probably about one/ten millionth of todays consumption rate), then yes, oil is a sustainable energy source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, Chrysler has only had two cars in their lineup for years. Wait... with the discontinuation of the 200, they only have one. Honestly, I often wonder why any of the domestic automakers bother with cars at all anymore. Go to any Ford, GM, or Chrysler dealer and 95% of what's on the lot are pickups and SUV/crossover type vehicles. Granted I live in an area with a high concentration of hicks, but even the larger dealers seem to skew more toward trucks than anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the last time we had this chat, i did come calcualtions, and it turned out the sunlight falling on 1000 square feet over an average day would yield the energy equivalent of not quite 6 gallons of gasoline.  Solar cells currently have about 20%, so that goes down to 1.2 gallons.   Since I couldn't get a straight answer about the efficiency of electrolysis last time, I did a little digging, and according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency industrial plants can get abut 70-80% efficiency, so assuming none of that electricity is used for anything else in the household, you should have about the equivalent of a gallon's worth of gasoline per day to fuel your vehicle.  If you have a really short commute, and a really efficient car, it should just work.

However, if you live in a city where you may be sharing that roof with a dozen other households, you can see that you start running out of energy pretty quick.   This in no way means that rooftop solar cells are a bad idea, but it's pretty clear that it's not going to work for everyone.

 

Edited by Richard Bartrop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

the last time we had this chat, i did come calcualtions, and it turned out the sunlight falling on 1000 square feet over an average day would yield the energy equivalent of not quite 6 gallons of gasoline.  Solar cells currently have about 20%, so that goes down to 1.2 gallons.   Since I couldn't get a straight answer about the efficiency of electrolysis last time, I did a little digging, and according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency industrial plants can get abut 70-80% efficiency, so assuming none of that electricity is used for anything else in the household, you should have about the equivalent of a gallon's worth of gasoline per day to fuel your vehicle.  If you have a really short commute, and a really efficient car, it should just work.

However, if you live in a city where you may be sharing that roof with a dozen other households, you can see that you start running out of energy pretty quick.   This in no way means that rooftop solar cells are a bad idea, but it's pretty clear that it's not going to work for everyone.

 

The main issue with solar is that it is very location dependent.  Here in SoCal,  I can completely eliminate my electrical bill(about $300 a month) with the installation of solar panels on my roof.  That will cost me about $20,000.  If I live here long enough it pays off.  If I add a few thousand more, I can get a large capacity storage system which will store excess over what I use and power the house for a couple of days if the power fails or I can use that to power a car.  However that is primarily because southern California is at lower latitudes with more intense sunshine and infrequent cloudy days.  As they say, "Your results may vary.  So Solar is not the sole answer to the problem any more that hydroelectric or wind.  All will work in the right location but not in every location.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

the last time we had this chat, i did come calcualtions, and it turned out the sunlight falling on 1000 square feet over an average day would yield the energy equivalent of not quite 6 gallons of gasoline.  Solar cells currently have about 20%, so that goes down to 1.2 gallons.   Since I couldn't get a straight answer about the efficiency of electrolysis last time, I did a little digging, and according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency industrial plants can get abut 70-80% efficiency, so assuming none of that electricity is used for anything else in the household, you should have about the equivalent of a gallon's worth of gasoline per day to fuel your vehicle.  If you have a really short commute, and a really efficient car, it should just work.

However, if you live in a city where you may be sharing that roof with a dozen other households, you can see that you start running out of energy pretty quick.   This in no way means that rooftop solar cells are a bad idea, but it's pretty clear that it's not going to work for everyone.

 

Agreed for the most part.

BUT...I intentionally arranged my life so I have a short commute. About 4 miles each way. My old beater truck gets about 12 MPG, and of course, as the energy density of hydrogen is less than that of gasoline, I might get 8 MPG on hydrogen. 

Seems to work OK. With a 20 MPG vehicle, it works just fine...with leftover fuel to burn. ;)

Unfortunately, we (not me, but humans in the developed West in general) have built our lives around stupidly wasting TIME and ENERGY commuting.

That needs to change.

NOTE: Honda's pilot project (rooftop-solar powered electrolysis) optimized as many factors as possible, and the results were said to provide enough fuel daily for an "average" commute in an "average" location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Agreed for the most part.

BUT...I intentionally arranged my life so I have a short commute. About 4 miles each way. My old beater truck gets about 12 MPG, and of course, as the energy density of hydrogen is less than that of gasoline, I might get 8 MPG on hydrogen. 

Seems to work OK. With a 20 MPG vehicle, it works just fine...with leftover fuel to burn. ;)

Unfortunately, we (not me, but humans in the developed West in general) have built our lives around stupidly wasting TIME and ENERGY commuting.

That needs to change.

NOTE: Honda's pilot project (rooftop-solar powered electrolysis) optimized as many factors as possible, and the results were said to provide enough fuel daily for an "average" commute in an "average" location.

Good for you.

I work out of my apartment, which is close to downtown.  What I can't walk to, I can get to by public transit, and that works just fine for me.  I also realize that this is not something everybody can do, or even wants to do.    "Everybody should just do what I do" is not a viable option.  See the people who think we should get rid of cars completely, and just ride everywhere on bicycles.

People have already made the decision to live close to work. A lot, in fact.  This is why we have the densely packed hives of humanity we call "cities".   Now this doesn't mean you can't run a city off solar, but there won't be enough surface area in the city itself to do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me...I frequently see the growing suburban sprawl surrounding Calgary (it's shocking how much it has grown in even the last 10-15 years) and think "dang, that's a lot of rooftops!" Ugly, too. People complain about the appearance of solar panels, but you can't get much worse than all those acres of offwhite stucco and grey-brown asphalt tile. Apparently Calgary gets 2396 hours of sun per year, over 333 days, making it Canada's sunniest city. If ever there was a case for rooftop solar on a mass scale in Canada, that would be the place. The sprawl can't be stuffed back in the bottle, but it could be useful for more than just housing. Politically, though, it would be like selling veggie stix to steak lovers.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, if ever there was a place where this idea would work, it would be low density suburban sprawl, where every household has a lot of surface area with which to collect sunlight.  As for the attractiveness of solar panels, this leads to the latest installment of Why Elon Musk is a Genius:

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/solarroof?redirect=no

Where most eco-warriors are content to just harangue you about how stupid you are for not listening, and we all know how much we love being harangued, Musk is making solar panels that will actually look attractive, and function like roof tiles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spex84 said:

That reminds me...I frequently see the growing suburban sprawl surrounding Calgary (it's shocking how much it has grown in even the last 10-15 years) and think "dang, that's a lot of rooftops!" Ugly, too. People complain about the appearance of solar panels, but you can't get much worse than all those acres of offwhite stucco and grey-brown asphalt tile. Apparently Calgary gets 2396 hours of sun per year, over 333 days, making it Canada's sunniest city. If ever there was a case for rooftop solar on a mass scale in Canada, that would be the place. The sprawl can't be stuffed back in the bottle, but it could be useful for more than just housing. Politically, though, it would be like selling veggie stix to steak lovers.

 

 

 

 

100% agree! As an Edmontonian, I too feel that Calgary is ugly! :P

Seriously though, I definitely notice the rooftop sprawl when coming into Calgary on hwy 2, or driving around Stoney Trail.

 

The problem with the rooftop solar though is the cost, both monetary and environmental, to produce solar panels and the associated battery banks required.

 

6 hours ago, Richard Bartrop said:

Oh yes, if ever there was a place where this idea would work, it would be low density suburban sprawl, where every household has a lot of surface area with which to collect sunlight.  As for the attractiveness of solar panels, this leads to the latest installment of Why Elon Musk is a Genius:

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/solarroof?redirect=no

Where most eco-warriors are content to just harangue you about how stupid you are for not listening, and we all know how much we love being harangued, Musk is making solar panels that will actually look attractive, and function like roof tiles. 

I think they look fantastic, but the order bank is so full, if you ordered today, you'd be waiting 2-3 years to get them. Producing them is a lot more difficult and expensive than I think even Elon was expecting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iamsuperdan said:

...The problem with the rooftop solar though is the cost, both monetary and environmental, to produce solar panels and the associated battery banks required...

Batteries are NOT required unless one wishes to be completely off-grid.

Solar produces power during peak demand hours, for the most part, can add it into the grid to take load off of existing generating plants, and evening demand is easily handled by the existing grid...UNTIL hundreds of thousands or millions of electric vehicles are plugged in at night to recharge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, iamsuperdan said:

...Producing them is a lot more difficult and expensive than I think even Elon was expecting.

Most new technologies or products take more time and more money to develop than is estimated, and ramping up production is always expensive.

With increased acceptance and production, costs always come down.

This is Manufacturing 101.

The thing about Musk is that he DOES things, rather than endlessly yapping yapping yapping for decades with little to show for all the expended hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

The thing about Musk is that he DOES things, rather than endlessly yapping yapping yapping for decades with little to show for all the expended hot air.

Exactly my point about Ford and other two US manufactures.  Cutting the lineup is about short term profits not looking to the future and doing something about it.  This may help the company get through tough times but you have to have vision to get into the future.  The world changes.  If a company doesn't adapt it becomes a dinosaur.  A company with a future has to see the future to make it future.  Doing the same old thing over and over is a quick road to the grave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original topic,  trucks in the US don't have to meet the safety, emissions, or economy standards that cars do, so it's no wonder that making them is more profitable.  Of course, if nobody buys cars, and everyone buys trucks, how long before that little oversight is corrected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do sometimes wonder how much of the "work" that people cite when they're explaining why they need trucks...is hauling their toys (ATVs, boats, RVs, snowmobiles, etc). 

How do the very wealthy in Europe haul their toys? Do people have different priorities, different or fewer motorized toys? Does high urban density and tightly-controlled land use drive down the opportunities to employ such toys, and therefore drive down the demand for large civilian vehicles?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now