It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Topic: It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30 (Read 22262 times) previous topic - next topic

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #75 – April 03, 2009, 12:14:19 AM

Quote from: jcassity;265613

what would be neat is if they would come out with all original classics.

imagine a 2009 / 1987 20th anny
or, a 2009 - 1988 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe!

Savings on the audo industry,, perhaps
Reason is all the engineering is already done, ford probably has records on all the build sheets, tooling would probably be a minimum.

Chevy can just come out with the 2009 / whatever year they want to.

Imagine your second chance to buy a car from days gone by but its brand new!!

And the screwed up part about that is, Most of our cars (I'm using 302's as an example) Get between 20-28 mpg's, when they are normally driven or cruisin' down the highway. Most v-6 cars now boast 26-28 mpg highway like they're so f*ckin economical. Cars were built so much better 15-20 years ago. When now does a 3700 lb V-8 get that kind of mileage? It would be awesome if they brought some of these cars back, probably a lot cheaper to build too.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #76 – April 03, 2009, 12:49:18 AM

Quote

imagine a 2009 / 1987 20th anny.
or, a 2009 - 1988 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe!

Savings on the auto industry,, perhaps
Reason is all the engineering is already done, ford probably has records on all the build sheets, tooling would probably be a minimum.

What about all the safety standards that have been put into place within the past 20 or so years? Airbags for one. These cars weighed 3400 pounds or so back in the day. I'm sure if you brought them up to 2009 safety regulations without subtracting anything, they would make a new Charger look svelte. If the stock braking system in place from then was placed on a car produced today I would expect lawsuits aplenty.

There are VERY few cars produced today that are up to snuff with these as far as sound deadening. I can hear every grain of sand that enters the rear wheel wells on my Mustang if I leave the radio off. Unfortunately, it's an area in most newer vehicles that has been treated to a scalpel in the interest of weight reduction.

Let's not forget the cost to design and implement how to add these features to an already existing design on a frame that was first seen in 1979 (and most likely designed in '75). The same frame that has the rigidity of a wet noodle. Install subframe connectors and you'll agree.

Quote

Most v-6 cars now boast 26-28 mpg highway like they're so f*ckin economical. Cars were built so much better 15-20 years ago. When now does a 3700 lb V-8 get that kind of mileage?

What car produced RIGHT NOW and for sale in the North American market has an 8 cylinder 150 HP gasoline engine? NONE.
At interstate speeds over distances of 150+ miles I've averaged 24-25 MPG in my Mustang. That's WITH the supercharger. Approximately 3 times the available horsepower and a torque PLATEAU (curve would be an insult). 12 second quarter mile runs vs 16-17 second runs with similar weight/gas mileage along with better stopping, handling, and the higher probability of survival in the event of a horrific incident.

There have been a few comparisons that I can think of where cars were compared by decade in categories like average power average weight and average fuel economy. I remember seeing one about 3 years ago in a Car & Driver magazine comparing the '80's, '90's, and 2000's. Average power doubled in that time frame while weight increased something like 45% all while maintaining similar fuel economy numbers.

This is a testament to how engineering goes hand in hand with marketing. During that time frame and up until hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans did most American consumers really give much thought as to whether or not their new vehicle was "green" so to speak? If it was then of course that was great, but things like interior volume, trunk space, towing capacity, available payload, horsepower, and a myriad of others took precedence over fuel economy for the average consumer. The SUV boom is proof enough of that.

Take a Ford 460 circa 1986 and drop it in the newest King Ranch Edition of the Ford F-150 what kind of mileage do you think you'll get with a set of 3.73's out back? Think it would be able to out accelerate the 6.8V10?

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #77 – April 03, 2009, 09:27:21 AM

Quote

Quote:
Most v-6 cars now boast 26-28 mpg highway like they're so f*ckin economical. Cars were built so much better 15-20 years ago. When now does a 3700 lb V-8 get that kind of mileage?
What car produced RIGHT NOW and for sale in the North American market has an 8 cylinder 150 HP gasoline engine? NONE.
At interstate speeds over distances of 150+ miles I've averaged 24-25 MPG in my Mustang. That's WITH the supercharger. Approximately 3 times the available horsepower and a torque PLATEAU (curve would be an insult). 12 second quarter mile runs vs 16-17 second runs with similar weight/gas mileage along with better stopping, handling, and the higher probability of survival in the event of a horrific incident.

Dito. best average over a long trip was 31.3 MPG with approx 330HP and weighing in at around 3400

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #78 – April 03, 2009, 10:20:22 AM

If Ford brought back the foxbody they would be a laughing stock. I don't think tooling costs would be at a minimum, since most companies destroy their factory tooling once the parts are out of production. Maybe an adapted Fox IV design could have been made back in 2005, but I'd be willing to bet there's nothing left of the tooling that was used to make the '04 Mustangs.

So not only would they have to start from scratch at the factory, they would also, like V8Demon said, bring it up to current safety/refinement standards. Compared to most chassis in the market today, the Fox was like a limp noodle. Everybody is telling the D3 to adapt or die. Adapting is building new and more refined cars, not going back to a 30 year old chassis that was discontinued five years ago.

They would be a laughing stock.

They need a light RWD chassis that is 100% new and refined with German poise and dynamics, that will spuppies amazing and loved cars like they did when they developed the Fox cars, but that can't actually be a Fox. It would be like VW bringing back the original Beetle. When your competitors are moving into the next decade and the buying public thinks you're stuck in the past, it would be suicide.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #79 – April 03, 2009, 10:31:37 AM

Quote from: oldraven;265645

If Ford brought back the foxbody they would be a laughing stock. I don't think tooling costs would be at a minimum, since most companies destroy their factory tooling once the parts are out of production. Maybe an adapted Fox IV design could have been made back in 2005, but I'd be willing to bet there's nothing left of the tooling that was used to make the '04 Mustangs.

So not only would they have to start from scratch at the factory, they would also, like V8Demon said, bring it up to current safety/refinement standards. Compared to most chassis in the market today, the Fox was like a limp noodle. Everybody is telling the D3 to adapt or die. Adapting is building new and more refined cars, not going back to a 30 year old chassis that was discontinued five years ago.

They would be a laughing stock.

They need a light RWD chassis that is 100% new and refined with German poise and dynamics, that will spuppies amazing and loved cars like they did when they developed the Fox cars, but that can't actually be a Fox. It would be like VW bringing back the original Beetle. When your competitors are moving into the next decade and the buying public thinks you're stuck in the past, it would be suicide.

If only they could build us cars like that and not charge an arm and a leg to buy it.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #80 – April 03, 2009, 10:39:13 AM

How about just resembling the fox bodies of the 80's ,like Dodge has done with the Charger and Challenger . If i had an extra 30+k lying around I'd be a Challenger owner.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #81 – April 03, 2009, 10:41:14 AM

Quote from: yankeepete;265650

How about just resembleing the fox bodies of the 80's ,like dodge has done with the Charger and Challenger . If i had an extra 30+k lying around I'd be a Challenger owner.

Some how I don't know how successful that would be. People aren't wanting Fox bodies as badly as 60s cars from yester-year. I'd love to see the Fox body look return but thats me.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #82 – April 03, 2009, 10:53:42 AM

What I think could be a great retro production for Ford would be the Torino of the mid to late 70's , its similar to the foxes with with the swept front and 4 lights . If they did it right I could see it being a sharp looking car.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #83 – April 03, 2009, 11:28:26 AM

I would love a today rendition of the 70-71 Torino Fastback. That would be in my garage right away.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #84 – April 04, 2009, 02:04:36 AM

well i called the news channel that did the report on the honda plant and hears what i was told . quote:We only did that story because of the layoffs for ratings porposes only because there was nothing to report on GM,Chyrstler,or Ford :end quote that was from the lady who answered the phone aint that some shiznit:beatyoass:

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #85 – April 04, 2009, 10:03:07 AM

Quote from: daddybair7;265758

well i called the news channel that did the report on the honda plant and hears what i was told . quote:We only did that story because of the layoffs for ratings porposes only because there was nothing to report on GM,Chyrstler,or Ford :end quote that was from the lady who answered the phone aint that some shiznit:beatyoass:

Incredible. They're not even trying to pretend it's for news reasons. They just didn't have a reason to on the domestics that day.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #86 – April 04, 2009, 07:31:17 PM

like i said it was from the lady who answered the phone but thats how the news works these days

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #87 – April 06, 2009, 03:53:22 AM

Quote from: yankeepete;264982

Where is this bailout coming from ,they are asking for a low interest fixed rate LOAN, not a bundle of cash that they have no intention of paying back . We would be more likely to get our money back from GM ,Chrysler,and Ford then AIG, CITI or Bank of America ,I would almost guarantee it .If we can give AIG over 85 Billion so they can go on vacation and hand out bonuses I think we could risk a loan to the car makers.

just an update,, AIG got thier retention fees
so will someone else............... Seems we are getting played. Lets sound all pissed off for the america ,,then double back because we have pork in it.

(04-03) 11:37 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay more than $210 million in bonuses through next year to give workers the incentive to stay in their jobs at the government-controlled companies.

The retention awards for more than 7,600 employees were disclosed in a letter from the companies' regulator released Friday by Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The companies paid out nearly $51 million last year, are scheduled to make $146 million in payments this year and $13 million in 2010.

Initially after the AIG flap, President Barack Obama had said he would "do everything we can to get those bonuses back." But the White House later backed down as it worked to ensure any restrictions on bonuses didn't alienate the banks and investors needed to help clean up the financial mess.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #88 – April 06, 2009, 11:45:58 AM

My question is a simple one ,why would you want to retain the services of employees that are obviously unable to do their jobs competently . If they don't want to take they cut or deferment of the retention bonus they can hit the bricks. Look at that I just saved Fannie Mae and Freddie 210 mil ,not counting the salaries of these incompantant ,arrogant idiots who feel they are entitled to something for doing a poor,no terrible job.
In today's job market there are plenty of candidates that are capable of taking over the vacancies this would create and would send the message ,if you can't do your job we'll find some one who can.
When i was growing up and played little league they kept score and not everyone got a trophy ,this it take a village and we're all winners mentality has watered down and is killing our ideas that only a job well done is rewarded. If your actions have contributed to the failure of your company ,how can you possible believe that you should still have your lob ,let alone be given a bonus.

It's do or die for GM, Chrysler: GM given 60 days, Chrysler 30

Reply #89 – April 06, 2009, 03:28:39 PM

I dont agree with it,, i agree with you. I just thought it was note worthy to follow up on the shrewd behavior of the gov't sayin one thing then behind closded doors doing another. Our terms of what was was were a little differnt, thats all.

Ill bet plenty of people out there think AIG didnt get that money,,,, a little follow up does a lot for my sanity.