Info on future V6 engine

Ford reportedly spent $200m a year on its F1 team. The top teams like Ferrari and Mercedes are reportedly spending over $500m / year.

Ford came to a very realistic conclusion: They would have to spend upwards of $400m a year to be competitive in F1. F1 technology has gone so far astray that it has next to nothing to do with production street cars. In terms of the overall car buying public, the # of people who are race fans and make purchase decisions based on F1 race results is so small that the $400m it would take to field a competitive F1 would be better spend elsewhere.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY ****** ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY ******S from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY ******S.

Are you GAY?
Are you a ******?
Are you a GAY ******?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY ****** ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY ****** ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY ****** ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY ****** community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY******S FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAY******S FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY ****** ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is ******NET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

Code:

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_******_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Indian
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Gay ****** Association of America

Michael Yount said:

My wife's Toyota MR2 had 4 valves/cylinder and variable intake manifold runner length in 1985. My 78 Rabbit had IRS when GM was hanging a beam axle (staight axle) under the back of their then-new Citations.

Click to expand...

Toyota MR-2 = R.I.P.
VW Rabbit = R.I.P.
It's a wonder that the "archaic" Mustang with its "conestoga wagon" rear end and "lack of technology" has survived since 1964. Maybe if it had IRS and 4 valves/cylinder and variable intake manifold runner length it would have ceased to exist also because of affordability issues. If you'll remember, Ford tried to give the Mustang some "new technology" in the early 90's. However the Mustang buyers were outraged at the thought of the new Mustang (nee Probe) having a turbocharged DOHC 4-cylinder and FWD. I also recall a "technologically advanced" Mustang in 1984 (SVO) that was well ahead of its time but was overpriced compared to its cheaper 5.0 brother. Technology does not equal sales...

The 350Z comparisons don't hold much water either: a 2-seater with a V6 requiring premium fuel, costing more money than a 4-seater Mustang with a V8 making more hp and tq on regular unleaded.

The original topic was on the new V6 however, and I'll sum it up with this; There is no comparison between a BASE engine in a $20k Mustang and a $27k 350Z, or any other vehicle for that matter. Ford obviously knows what this market wants as they have had a strangle-hold on this segment for years. I personally am greatful for an excellent new platform from which to build upon, and the resultant advancements in powertrain, ergonomics, etc.

Michael Yount said:

Unfortunately most of the domestic technology breakthroughs seem to come in figuring out how to get multiple cup holders in SUV's and minivans.

Click to expand...

The new Ford GT(40) doesn't have any cupholders.

The supercharged 5.4L truck-based engine in the GT40 is not what I'd call a technological breakthrough - notwithstanding the lack of cupholders.

The MR2 isn't quite R.I.P. - your local dealer will be happy to sell you one (next year, maybe not). The Rabbit soldiers on as the Golf - same car, different name. It enters it's 30th year, 10 behind the stang, but given that the Beetle soldiered on for almost 50 years, VW has even more experience than Ford/Mustang at keeping a particular brand around for a while. Never referred to the Stang as being Connestoga-like - that reference was to GM's product. The 84 SVO might have been technologically advanced by Stang standards, but not by everyone else's - that's what spelled it's failure. It wasn't a cost issue - it was a value issue. It always is. That's the error the domestic makers have been making for 20 years.

Most of you continue to miss the big picture - the issue isn't the new Stang. It will sell well and perform up to expectations of most with both engines - Ford knows it's market there. The issue is the REST of Ford/GM's product line which enables the sales of the cars we like best. If they don't get their act together everywhere else, they won't be around/won't be able to serve up the bits we like.

Michael Yount said:

The supercharged 5.4L truck-based engine in the GT40 is not what I'd call a technological breakthrough - notwithstanding the lack of cupholders.

The MR2 isn't quite R.I.P. - your local dealer will be happy to sell you one (next year, maybe not). The Rabbit soldiers on as the Golf - same car, different name. It enters it's 30th year, 10 behind the stang, but given that the Beetle soldiered on for almost 50 years, VW has even more experience than Ford/Mustang at keeping a particular brand around for a while. Never referred to the Stang as being Connestoga-like - that reference was to GM's product. The 84 SVO might have been technologically advanced by Stang standards, but not by everyone else's - that's what spelled it's failure. It wasn't a cost issue - it was a value issue. It always is. That's the error the domestic makers have been making for 20 years.

Most of you continue to miss the big picture - the issue isn't the new Stang. It will sell well and perform up to expectations of most with both engines - Ford knows it's market there. The issue is the REST of Ford/GM's product line which enables the sales of the cars we like best. If they don't get their act together everywhere else, they won't be around/won't be able to serve up the bits we like.

Click to expand...

And your still missing the point that other automakers are obviously surviving with less than Ford's amount of market share. And if Ford can start turning a profit. They will continue to be around for quite a while longer.

Oh my - you've got to look at the trend, not the snapshot.

In general, the smaller companies that are 'surviving' are either growing (gaining market share) or they are surving at the upper end of the game (companies like Porsche, BMW, etc. - which by the way are growing AND profitable). Ford and GM are doing neither. Their mainstream offerings have been and remain luke warm. Ford's higher end offerings have been breaking even with Volvo doing a bit better than expected, but Jag/AstonMartin/Rover not doing as well. And they seem to have just given up with Lincoln/Mercury - they ought to be at least trying (like Caddy is trying) to compete directly with Benz, BMW, Lexus, et al., but they seem content to keep selling a decreasing number of Town Cars and Marquis' to a market that is literally dying on them.

I will say that I think Ford is better positioned than GM. But if the stockmarket doesn't start to see the some hope in Bill Ford and his team, they're simply not gonna have the capital they need to take on the likes of BMW and Mercedes on the top end, and Honda and Toyota for the masses.

The trends are clear - both companies are in trouble presently, and the path out is not at all clear or easy.

Michael Yount said:

Oh my - you've got to look at the trend, not the snapshot.

In general, the smaller companies that are 'surviving' are either growing (gaining market share) or they are surving at the upper end of the game (companies like Porsche, BMW, etc. - which by the way are growing AND profitable). Ford and GM are doing neither. Their mainstream offerings have been and remain luke warm. Ford's higher end offerings have been breaking even with Volvo doing a bit better than expected, but Jag/AstonMartin/Rover not doing as well. And they seem to have just given up with Lincoln/Mercury - they ought to be at least trying (like Caddy is trying) to compete directly with Benz, BMW, Lexus, et al., but they seem content to keep selling a decreasing number of Town Cars and Marquis' to a market that is literally dying on them.

I will say that I think Ford is better positioned than GM. But if the stockmarket doesn't start to see the some hope in Bill Ford and his team, they're simply not gonna have the capital they need to take on the likes of BMW and Mercedes on the top end, and Honda and Toyota for the masses.

The trends are clear - both companies are in trouble presently, and the path out is not at all clear or easy.

Click to expand...

Yes look at the trends. But realize that marketshare without profit was what brought down many of the dotcoms. They couldn't make money and the stockmarket overvalued their stocks. Which they then spent money on gaining marketshare. I'm not saying Ford does not need market share. But I believe that profitability is more immportant.

The dotcom situation couldn't be any further from the automotive situation. You've got a brand new industry in its infancy vs. a completely mature industry. Huge capital investment - paper value - with no profits. You're right - wouldn't hold up over time, and it crashed. That's not what's going on in the automotive battles of the 21st century.

Ford/GM's problem in a nutshell is that they're product is unwanted. That's WHY they're unprofitable. And they are currently doing what they've always done when they're not profitable enough - they're cutting costs/prices. Problem is, the public is saying - that's not enough anymore. We'd rather pay more for something better - which higher cost/value product other manufacturers have been happy to provide. Certainly they have glimmers of hope - the new Stang is one. Some of the Caddy's and the Corvette for GM. But, as I mentioned earlier on in this running dialogue (which I'm enjoying by the way), unless and until Ford/GM can compete in the Corolla/Civic/Camry/Accord markets, they've got a big problem. And the markets that have traditionally buoyed them - trucks/SUV's - are coming under increasing pressure from non-domestic competition, and rising oil prices. The turmoil in Middle East doesn't appear to be headed to any resolution that will cause prices to drop significantly anytime soon. Which means smaller, not bigger, product is gonna be needed. And that's where the 2 giants have always struggled - they can't build a competitive smaller vehicle.

I don't think their shareholders will sit idly by and let them 'downsize' their market share. They'll force board changes first - and that will ultimately result in mergers/acquisitions. And they're too proud to look outside this country unless they're the buyer. Ford/GM merger - watch for it. I hope I'm wrong. Oh, and by the way, that merger will only delay the issues with size. They've got to change their thinking. We ought to be picking off the markets in OTHER countries.

Michael Yount said:

The dotcom situation couldn't be any further from the automotive situation. You've got a brand new industry in its infancy vs. a completely mature industry. Huge capital investment - paper value - with no profits. You're right - wouldn't hold up over time, and it crashed. That's not what's going on in the automotive battles of the 21st century.

Ford/GM's problem in a nutshell is that they're product is unwanted. That's WHY they're unprofitable. And they are currently doing what they've always done when they're not profitable enough - they're cutting costs/prices. Problem is, the public is saying - that's not enough anymore. We'd rather pay more for something better - which higher cost/value product other manufacturers have been happy to provide. Certainly they have glimmers of hope - the new Stang is one. Some of the Caddy's and the Corvette for GM. But, as I mentioned earlier on in this running dialogue (which I'm enjoying by the way), unless and until Ford/GM can compete in the Corolla/Civic/Camry/Accord markets, they've got a big problem. And the markets that have traditionally buoyed them - trucks/SUV's - are coming under increasing pressure from non-domestic competition, and rising oil prices. The turmoil in Middle East doesn't appear to be headed to any resolution that will cause prices to drop significantly anytime soon. Which means smaller, not bigger, product is gonna be needed. And that's where the 2 giants have always struggled - they can't build a competitive smaller vehicle.

I don't think their shareholders will sit idly by and let them 'downsize' their market share. They'll force board changes first - and that will ultimately result in mergers/acquisitions. And they're too proud to look outside this country unless they're the buyer. Ford/GM merger - watch for it. I hope I'm wrong. Oh, and by the way, that merger will only delay the issues with size. They've got to change their thinking. We ought to be picking off the markets in OTHER countries.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is quite true. The F-150 seems to be doing well. The Focus seems to be doing well. The mustang will do well. The only vehicle that seems to be having trouble is the taurus. I agree they can't come up with something like the accord. But Idon't see nearly the same problem with Ford as I do with GM. GM is building more and more trucks all the time. Without any thought for cars. Or at least it seems that way.

Michael Yount said:

Ford/GM's problem in a nutshell is that they're product is unwanted. That's WHY they're unprofitable. And they are currently doing what they've always done when they're not profitable enough - they're cutting costs/prices. Problem is, the public is saying - that's not enough anymore. We'd rather pay more for something better - which higher cost/value product other manufacturers have been happy to provide. Certainly they have glimmers of hope - the new Stang is one. Some of the Caddy's and the Corvette for GM. But, as I mentioned earlier on in this running dialogue (which I'm enjoying by the way), unless and until Ford/GM can compete in the Corolla/Civic/Camry/Accord markets, they've got a big problem.

Click to expand...

Here are the ten bestsellers with total sales figures for calendar year 2003, based on data published by J.D. Power and Associates:


1. Ford F-Series
821,865

2. Chevrolet Silverado
684,302

3. Dodge Ram
449,371

4. Toyota Camry
413,296

5. Honda Accord
397,750

6. Ford Taurus
300,496

7. Honda Civic
299,672

8. Ford Explorer
268,644

9. Chevrolet Impala
267,882

10. Chevrolet Cavalier
256,550
Source: J.D. Power and Associates

Product is unwanted?
I believe 3 of the top 10 in sales qualifies as wanted. The Focus checked in at 229,353; however, I challenge someone to find global sales of these two vehicles. I believe the Focus is the GLOBAL leader in its segment?

From the Ford annual report:

The three-millionth Focus rolled off the Saarlouis assembly line in Germany early this year, bringing total worldwide production to more than four million.

Click to expand...

Michael Yount said:

And the markets that have traditionally buoyed them - trucks/SUV's - are coming under increasing pressure from non-domestic competition, and rising oil prices

Click to expand...

If the top three selling VEHICLES are domestic trucks, where is this "non-domestic competition"?

I agree that the domestics need to step it up in the mid-size sedan segment, and time will tell if the all-new 500 can be a player.

The bottom line is this...You get what you pay for, and not everyone can afford what they want; therefore there will always be a place for a vehicle with less content at a lower price point.

Michael Yount said:

Ford/GM's problem in a nutshell is that they're product is unwanted. That's WHY they're unprofitable. And they are currently doing what they've always done when they're not profitable enough - they're cutting costs/prices. Problem is, the public is saying - that's not enough anymore. We'd rather pay more for something better - which higher cost/value product other manufacturers have been happy to provide.

Click to expand...

The reason why Ford & GM are struggling to be profitible is that the hourly cost of a UAW production line worker is over $60 / hour with all benefits, medical, retirement, etc. Toyota, Honda, Nissian are paying $28 / hour with all benefits while Hundai is paying $18 / hour with benefits.

Put the UAW cost structure on Toyota, Nissian, Honda, etc. and they would be bleeding money.

Cost structure is certainly part of the problem - I agree with you - perhaps if they weren't burdened with that cost structure they could put more of that money into product development!