Ford Taurus
10-07-2009, 10:27 AM
#102
Originally Posted by Jimmies,Oct 7 2009, 12:22 PM
2nd Gen:[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYdS0DxNu90 [/media]
10-07-2009, 12:03 PM
#104
That's my point - why the change, since they ALWAYS said it the other way prior to this model.
10-07-2009, 12:53 PM
#105
Originally Posted by JonBoy,Oct 7 2009, 07:53 AM
I agree with your principles but I think you're still stretching a ways to make it seem like chassis optimization (or vehicle optimization) is in some way easy, quick, or cheap. It costs a fortune to optimize! Material savings are always available but at what cost (time, money, complexity)?
I work on a 12 lb. subframe design and make it 7 lb.
I take a preliminary 17 lb. wheel design from the styling guys and make it 12 lb.
I evolve a 44 lb. primary vehicle frame design and make it 29 lb.
All for the same cost or CHEAPER than the original design.
But of course when Ford marketing just wants it out the door, and says "hey, isn't the Chrysler 300 also 4100 lb.? We must have it right..."
I think it's absurd to suppose that this 4100 lb. (in fwd form!) enormo-sedan couldn't have offered the exact same space and performance for a lot less weight, if the design intent had been just a LITTLE more sophisticated than "lets build a Chrysler 300 on a fwd Volvo platform, and call it Taurus".
Dumb.
IMO...
10-07-2009, 12:58 PM
#106
Originally Posted by Spec_Ops2087,Oct 7 2009, 08:04 AM
Zdan, your making way to many assumptions. Your view is simply not realistic.
But that is simply not the case, they *DO* make mistakes, time and again.
GM made the mistake (which was EASILY foreseen by many, including myself) of continuing to rely on truck/SUV sales for profits, while it's share of the CAR market continued to decline. They did not refocus, and as soon as gas prices went up they were in BIG trouble. The economy tanking didn't help, but probably didn't hurt as much as it could have, as gas prices fell again.
Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to think that these jackholes know what they're doing. They don't.
Taurus = wrong direction
Might not kill the company, but they'd be doing their long-term prospects a lot more of a favor by investing a little in smaller/lighter platforms that give the same utility/comfort/performance at the same price.
Saddling down an S80 platform with a bunch of extra mass and shoving it into the market might make them a few bucks more quickly, but long-term it's a piss-poor plan. You don't learn how to make better cars that way.
IMO...
10-07-2009, 01:16 PM
#107
10-07-2009, 01:22 PM
#108
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sewell, NJ
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well on the money side what would be worse: Reskinning an aging S80 platform and selling more models as Tauri thus further amortizing the costs of the Ford D3 and Volvo P2 chassis or design, develop, and build a whole new platform from scratch? Creating an entirely new platform is extremely expensive; the Commodore/G8 platform from GM cost more than $1 billion. The Taurus is a low volume car, Ford estimates sales between 50 and 70 thousand units annually. Why create further losses in a time when you can ill afford to.
Chassis dynamics and agility aren't exactly high on the list of things Taurus buyers are looking for. So taking a few hundred pounds off at an enormous cost sounds like bad business to me. Extending the life cycle of a successful design at little extra additional cost sounds better.
Ford did have designs for a new global large car architecture that had some flexibility but those plans have been put on hold until the economy straightens out.
Chassis dynamics and agility aren't exactly high on the list of things Taurus buyers are looking for. So taking a few hundred pounds off at an enormous cost sounds like bad business to me. Extending the life cycle of a successful design at little extra additional cost sounds better.
Ford did have designs for a new global large car architecture that had some flexibility but those plans have been put on hold until the economy straightens out.
10-07-2009, 02:17 PM
#109
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZDan,Oct 7 2009, 12:58 PM
My impression is that YOUR view, shared by many/most, is that Giant Corporate Car Company by definition can do no wrong, and ALWAYS makes the best design for making the company profitable.
But that is simply not the case, they *DO* make mistakes, time and again.
Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to think that these jackholes know what they're doing. They don't.
Taurus = wrong direction
Might not kill the company, but they'd be doing their long-term prospects a lot more of a favor by investing a little in smaller/lighter platforms that give the same utility/comfort/performance at the same price.
IMO...
But that is simply not the case, they *DO* make mistakes, time and again.
Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to think that these jackholes know what they're doing. They don't.
Taurus = wrong direction
Might not kill the company, but they'd be doing their long-term prospects a lot more of a favor by investing a little in smaller/lighter platforms that give the same utility/comfort/performance at the same price.
IMO...
I think it is foolish of you to ridicule Ford, call them backwards when every car manufacturer is doing the same thing...