Ford sticks with F1
Dott.Ing.HatzOlah®
it takes to get Jaguar to the top in F1,their was rumor that it was
going to get shut down after the 02' was slower than the 01' car....
http://www.dailyf1.com/en/news/news.php?id=978
Back in the 60's when o'l Henry got shafted by Enzo Ferrari ,he spent
over 500 million in todays value to win LeMans with the GT40, which it
did for a few years and beat Ferrari too which was the main aim (good
for Henry's ego too...!)
In any case Ford are by and away easily the largest motorsports car
company on the planet,if they ever organised themselves like in the old
days they would be a mighty competitor.
I for one would like them do alot better than where they are now,and
have "Powered by Ford" on the rocker cover other than
"Cosworth/Jaguar",esp when it overtakes a kit car hahahaonda powered
Jordan/BAR
CIAo Dott.Ing.HL
Kieron Murphy
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dott=2EIng=2EHatzOlah=AE?= <hatz...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Back in the 60's when o'l Henry got shafted by Enzo Ferrari ,he spent
>over 500 million in todays value to win LeMans with the GT40, which it
>did for a few years and beat Ferrari too which was the main aim (good
>for Henry's ego too...!)
Henry wanted to wins LeMans etc, so thought cheap way, buy that
Italian blokes little outfit, the bloke said no, so Henry said fuck
it, i'll slap a truck engine in a car and beat you - just to rub it in
a little :-)
>In any case Ford are by and away easily the largest motorsports car
>company on the planet,if they ever organised themselves like in the old
>days they would be a mighty competitor.
Yep, and probably the most succesful too
>I for one would like them do alot better than where they are now,and
>have "Powered by Ford" on the rocker cover other than
>"Cosworth/Jaguar",esp when it overtakes a kit car hahahaonda powered
>Jordan/BAR
Yep, I never liked the name change to Jag.
Kieron
CatharticF1
really say :
> Ford USA has given the green light to continue to burn as much money as
> it takes to get Jaguar to the top in F1,their was rumor that it was
> going to get shut down after the 02' was slower than the 01' car....
>
> http://www.dailyf1.com/en/news/news.php?id=978
>
> Back in the 60's when o'l Henry got shafted by Enzo Ferrari ,he spent
> over 500 million in todays value to win LeMans with the GT40, which it
> did for a few years and beat Ferrari too which was the main aim (good
> for Henry's ego too...!)
>
Ford aren't even close to Ferrari. They were racing with Minardi at
Imola ..
Ford should stick to agricultural vehicles like the current Falcon.
--
CatharticF1
Brisbane, Australia
The trouble with probability is that it's only right most of the time.
Dott.Ing.HatzOlahŽ
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17338b512...@news0.optus.net.au...
> > Ford aren't even close to Ferrari.
For the record Ford have more GP's victories than anybody else with their
Cosworth
They were racing with Minardi at
> Imola ..
Yeap the O2' Jag is slower than the 03' new wind tunnel is going to fix that
(they hope...)
>
> Ford should stick to agricultural vehicles like the current Falcon.
Nonsense, Ford have alot to offer motorsports, with a glorious history
matched by few others
ps The Falcon ain't half a bad car either,possibly the best value in the
world and most suited car to Australia conditioins
CIAo Dott.Ing.HL
Noddy
"Dott.Ing.HatzOlahŽ" <hatz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Back in the 60's when o'l Henry got shafted by Enzo Ferrari ,he spent
> over 500 million in todays value to win LeMans with the GT40, which it
> did for a few years and beat Ferrari too which was the main aim (good
> for Henry's ego too...!)
Just out of curiosity, where did you get that figure from? The GT-40 was
largely built by a select handfull of Ford engineers on a pretty tight
budget for the specific purpose of shutting a few people up. It was never a
huge budget operation as the company couldn't afford that kind of expense at
the time...
Incidentally, Old Henry was long dead by the time any idea of the GT-40 came
to being. If he was still alive, it probably wouldn't have ever existed :)
> In any case Ford are by and away easily the largest motorsports car
> company on the planet,if they ever organised themselves like in the old
> days they would be a mighty competitor.
Bear in mind that motorsports is the world's most expensive form of
automotive advertising, and Ford sells plenty of cars without having to over
indulge in the risks of failure and the associated bad press.
> I for one would like them do alot better than where they are now,and
> have "Powered by Ford" on the rocker cover other than
> "Cosworth/Jaguar",esp when it overtakes a kit car hahahaonda powered
> Jordan/BAR
There's plenty of "Ford" success stories out there Hatz, you're just not
looking in the right circles....
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"Dott.Ing.HatzOlahŽ" <hatz...@hotmail.comŽ> wrote in message
news:aaatnh$ul1
> For the record Ford have more GP's victories than anybody else with their
> Cosworth
With respects Hatz, as successful an engine as the Cosworth V8 was, Ford
didn't have a great deal to do with it other than open their cheque book to
get their name on the rocker covers :)
Regards,
Noddy.
CatharticF1
> > > Ford aren't even close to Ferrari.
>
> For the record Ford have more GP's victories than anybody else with their
> Cosworth
True, with two necessary qualifications.
First, Ford sprang for the money for the Cosworth engine, they didn't
develop it.
Second, that was their only connection with the cars that won.
<snip>
> >
> > Ford should stick to agricultural vehicles like the current Falcon.
>
> Nonsense, Ford have alot to offer motorsports, with a glorious history
> matched by few others
>
Worldwide, again I agree. I was only poking a bit of fun. But to compete
against companies like Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and even Toyota now is a
tough ask. I imagine they would be a good deal less efficient now than a
team like Ferrari in F1 or say Mitsubishi in rallying (pre this year).
The huge amount of money thrown at Le Mans was testament of this in the
past.
> ps The Falcon ain't half a bad car either,possibly the best value in the
> world and most suited car to Australia conditioins
Disagree with this completely. Every Falcon I have ever driven was
complete rubbish. So this is Ford Australia I am talking about, not Ford
in general. The Commodores seem far better, and meritworthy in a global
context. (I'm no Holden fan..). Ford should pack up shop and import.
They should bring in the Focus for a start.
LS1Dan--
So Ford just prostituted the idea ha!
:-)
--
Regards
Dan
===================================================================
8
My car wish list:
http://www.alpina.de/english/automobiles/d10/d10_biturbo_e.htm
===================================================================
LS1Dan--
> Disagree with this completely. Every Falcon I have ever driven was
> complete rubbish. So this is Ford Australia I am talking about, not Ford
> in general. The Commodores seem far better, and meritworthy in a global
> context. (I'm no Holden fan..). Ford should pack up shop and import.
> They should bring in the Focus for a start.
I smell a troll here. If Ford closed up shop down here 1)Plenty of
people who work in the factory will lose their jobs. 2)What is Ford
going to replace the RWD Falcon car and ute range with? The yank Taurus?
which was a complete flop here. What about fleets deals for Government
and Taxi's. The Falcon has proven (Yes I am a Holden fan but this is a
unbiased opinion) to be a sturdy reliable cheap car to run. The Focus is
coming to Australia shortly.
Noddy
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> Disagree with this completely. Every Falcon I have ever driven was
> complete rubbish. So this is Ford Australia I am talking about, not Ford
> in general. The Commodores seem far better, and meritworthy in a global
> context. (I'm no Holden fan..). Ford should pack up shop and import.
> They should bring in the Focus for a start.
Sorry to interject here, but I can only assume that you were either terribly
unlucky with your (unknown) number of Falcons or you don't know shit from
shoe polish :)
In 25 years of servicing cars, I've *always* found Falcons to be a better
car than Commodores. Not by a huge margin, but a noticeable one nonetheless
and especially in later years. They have a better overall build quality,
they're generally more reliable and they're also more inexpensive to repair
on average.
You're entitled to your opinion, but to me it seems ludicrous to suggest
that the Falcon is rubbish while implying that the Commodore is of world
standard in the same breath :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"LS1Dan--" <N...@noway.com> wrote in message
> So Ford just prostituted the idea ha!
> :-)
Pretty much :)
Cosworth Engineering designed and built the engine. Ford just bankrolled the
company with a view to "buying" themselves an F1 history.
Regards,
Noddy.
LS1Dan--
>
> "CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
>
> > Disagree with this completely. Every Falcon I have ever driven was
> > complete rubbish. So this is Ford Australia I am talking about, not Ford
> > in general. The Commodores seem far better, and meritworthy in a global
> > context. (I'm no Holden fan..). Ford should pack up shop and import.
> > They should bring in the Focus for a start.
>
> Sorry to interject here, but I can only assume that you were either terribly
> unlucky with your (unknown) number of Falcons or you don't know shit from
> shoe polish :)
Reminds me of the thrown a rod incident on the 304 in the VP I use to
have. If only had a SBC under the hood instead would of been such a
better beast. :-) But I think I am making up big time with the VX which
has been faultless. :-)
Noddy
"LS1Dan--" <N...@noway.com> wrote in message
> Reminds me of the thrown a rod incident on the 304 in the VP I use to
> have. If only had a SBC under the hood instead would of been such a
> better beast. :-) But I think I am making up big time with the VX which
> has been faultless. :-)
Absolutely.
As much as there is this gigantic "urban myth" about GenIII's being a very
unreliable engine, they are very good and vastly superior to the plastic
they replaced. I'd have one tomorrow without hesitation...
Regards,
Noddy.
Steve Magee
wrote:
Know thy enemy...
>Incidentally, Old Henry was long dead by the time any idea of the GT-40 came
>to being. If he was still alive, it probably wouldn't have ever existed :)
>
I think Hatz was referring to Henry Ford II, grandson of old Henry,
son of Edsel. Now THERE was a name Ford could have used on the AU -
the Ford Edsel... :)
>> In any case Ford are by and away easily the largest motorsports car
>> company on the planet,if they ever organised themselves like in the old
>> days they would be a mighty competitor.
>
>Bear in mind that motorsports is the world's most expensive form of
>automotive advertising, and Ford sells plenty of cars without having to over
>indulge in the risks of failure and the associated bad press.
Absoferkinlutely. Reason why GM had for many years a "no motor sport"
policy, which is one reason why the first - not counting the S4 EH -
Holden racing team was the Holden Dealer Team, ostensibly funded and
run by the Council of Holden Dealers (yeah, right, chortle) and not by
GM, or GM-H. Anyways, it was one of the reasons that the Chevvy Bow
Tie was missing for so many years.
>
>> I for one would like them do alot better than where they are now,and
>> have "Powered by Ford" on the rocker cover other than
>> "Cosworth/Jaguar",esp when it overtakes a kit car hahahaonda powered
>> Jordan/BAR
>
>There's plenty of "Ford" success stories out there Hatz, you're just not
>looking in the right circles....
And long may they continue, if not necessarily over Holden .. :)
Steve
>
>Regards,
>Noddy.
>
>
>
CatharticF1
> CatharticF1 wrote:
>
> > Disagree with this completely. Every Falcon I have ever driven was
> > complete rubbish. So this is Ford Australia I am talking about, not Ford
> > in general. The Commodores seem far better, and meritworthy in a global
> > context. (I'm no Holden fan..). Ford should pack up shop and import.
> > They should bring in the Focus for a start.
>
> I smell a troll here. If Ford closed up shop down here 1)Plenty of
> people who work in the factory will lose their jobs. 2)What is Ford
> going to replace the RWD Falcon car and ute range with? The yank Taurus?
> which was a complete flop here. What about fleets deals for Government
> and Taxi's. The Falcon has proven (Yes I am a Holden fan but this is a
> unbiased opinion) to be a sturdy reliable cheap car to run. The Focus is
> coming to Australia shortly.
>
I'm fed up with paying import tariffs to prop up the Australian car
industry. It has had plenty of time to adjust and has done a very poor
job. Take a look at *private* car sales for the Falcon. If you exclude
fleet and taxis the numbers are very poor. Ford Australia have had the
best part of 20 years and still haven't lifted their game. Look at the
AU! They can't have even bothered to focus test the shape, and the
engineering was appalling. Unpainted / treated corroding suspension
members were just the beginning. Holden seem to have made great strides
over the last couple of decades by comparison, and have a much better
idea of where to source their cars from. I'm still a bit dubious of
Mitsibishi as well, particularly in light of the new pile of money being
poured down their throats.
My point in short is this: there is no pressure for Ford to improve and
so we'll just keep getting the same drivel, because ..
1) The touring cars are 'balanced' so that regardless of how good the
base starting point, the result will be the same. Even with this they can
hardly keep up. One big marketing pile of BS that smells appalling if you
care to remove the peg from your nose.
2) The taxi and company fleets don't particularly care about quality so
much as running familiar (read old) cheap cars.
3) Import tariffs still make them *look* better value to some of the
sweaty masses who keep forgetting the enormous depreciation hit they take
when driving one off a dealer's lot
4) The cultural fascination with 'size means value' which also now means
a diesel belching 4WD makes you an upper class motorist.
Dott.Ing.HatzOlahŽ
"Noddy" <das...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:aab0te$964de$1...@ID-132740.news.dfncis.de...
Yes but Ford own Cosworth 100% (well one of the them, VW the other...)
So for all intended purposes Cosworth IS Ford
We have what you are trying to explain in ILMOR Engineering which makes
Benzs F1 and before Benzs Indy engines,both made in UK (Indy is axed) BUT
Benz only own 30% of Ilmor not 100% of Cosworth like Ford.
Still like the origonal post i would like to see "Powered By Ford" on the
Jag but aint going to happen
CIAo Dott.Ing.HL
Dott.Ing.HatzOlahŽ
> Did Dott.Ing.HatzOlah® (hatz...@hotmail.com®) really say :....YES!
>
> > > > Ford aren't even close to Ferrari.
> >
> > For the record Ford have more GP's victories than anybody else with
their
> > Cosworth
>
> True, with two necessary qualifications.
>
> First, Ford sprang for the money for the Cosworth engine, they didn't
> develop it.
Well is is their company after all
>
> Second, that was their only connection with the cars that won.
>
> <snip>
> > >
> > > Ford should stick to agricultural vehicles like the current Falcon.
> >
> > Nonsense, Ford have alot to offer motorsports, with a glorious history
> > matched by few others
> >
>
> Worldwide, again I agree. I was only poking a bit of fun. But to compete
> against companies like Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and even Toyota now is a
> tough ask. I imagine they would be a good deal less efficient now than a
> team like Ferrari in F1 or say Mitsubishi in rallying (pre this year).
> The huge amount of money thrown at Le Mans was testament of this in the
> past.
Yeah they have got a huge task to do at this will take time,in any case
seeing u like F1 note how at the Spanish GP this weekend Arrows (Powered by
Ford!) is 2nd fastest!!So their donk is ok just the rest of the car (and
Jags.) looks like very ordinary standard.
>
> > ps The Falcon ain't half a bad car either,possibly the best value in the
> > world and most suited car to Australia conditioins
>
> Disagree with this completely. Every Falcon I have ever driven was
> complete rubbish. So this is Ford Australia I am talking about, not Ford
> in general. The Commodores seem far better, and meritworthy in a global
> context. (I'm no Holden fan..). Ford should pack up shop and import.
I have had 2 Falcon Utes the first was dynamite went over 750,000km and the
current one is at 125,000km and still feels like a puppy,they both have been
the cheapest car to buy and run i have ever owned.I am so satisfied with
them my next ute will be the AV early next year,suits my job and budget
perfectly,the Jap utes (been their) dont cut it simple as that
> They should bring in the Focus for a start.
Nearly every single Ford that they have imported has been a disaster,the
Focus will end up like the Mondeo to expnsive slow and poor value vs the
Falcon and will die
Ford need the Fiesta more urgently
CIAo Dott.Ing.HL
LS1Dan--
Ahh why should I care I am a Holden fan.
:-)
CatharticF1
>
> "CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1733a8576...@news0.optus.net.au...
> > Did Dott.Ing.HatzOlah® (hatz...@hotmail.com®) really say :....YES!
> >
> > > > > Ford aren't even close to Ferrari.
> > >
> > > For the record Ford have more GP's victories than anybody else with
> their
> > > Cosworth
> >
> > True, with two necessary qualifications.
> >
> > First, Ford sprang for the money for the Cosworth engine, they didn't
> > develop it.
>
> Well is is their company after all
Well it is *now*, and as you point out elsewhere, VW are in the game as
well.
<snip>
> > Worldwide, again I agree. I was only poking a bit of fun. But to compete
> > against companies like Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and even Toyota now is a
> > tough ask. I imagine they would be a good deal less efficient now than a
> > team like Ferrari in F1 or say Mitsubishi in rallying (pre this year).
> > The huge amount of money thrown at Le Mans was testament of this in the
> > past.
>
> Yeah they have got a huge task to do at this will take time,in any case
> seeing u like F1 note how at the Spanish GP this weekend Arrows (Powered by
> Ford!) is 2nd fastest!!So their donk is ok just the rest of the car (and
> Jags.) looks like very ordinary standard.
Well the engine isn't spectacular, but seems solid. Likely close to the
Mercedes this season, and on par with Honda atm - who look to be getting
serious at last. Ferrari/BMW/Renault and likely Toyota are in a whole
other league though it would seem.
>
> >
> > > ps The Falcon ain't half a bad car either,possibly the best value in the
> > > world and most suited car to Australia conditioins
> >
> > Disagree with this completely. Every Falcon I have ever driven was
> > complete rubbish. So this is Ford Australia I am talking about, not Ford
> > in general. The Commodores seem far better, and meritworthy in a global
> > context. (I'm no Holden fan..). Ford should pack up shop and import.
>
> I have had 2 Falcon Utes the first was dynamite went over 750,000km and the
> current one is at 125,000km and still feels like a puppy,they both have been
> the cheapest car to buy and run i have ever owned.I am so satisfied with
> them my next ute will be the AV early next year,suits my job and budget
> perfectly,the Jap utes (been their) dont cut it simple as that
>
> > They should bring in the Focus for a start.
>
> Nearly every single Ford that they have imported has been a disaster,the
> Focus will end up like the Mondeo to expnsive slow and poor value vs the
> Falcon and will die
Well the old Mondeo was not a good car. The Focus is terrific, but in
typical Ford Australia forward thinking they are bringing it in near the
end of its model life. The new Mondeo seems to be on the money too. I'm
definitely not anti-Ford, only Ford Australia. We never got the Puma, and
I doubt we'll get the Focus RS either.
> Ford need the Fiesta more urgently
>
Perhaps - to combat the Barina (no great shakes O/S COTY here?!?!), but
the new model has only just been introduced, hasn't it? We won't see it
for years - if ever ;-p
--
CatharticF1
Brisbane, Australia
The trouble with probability is that it's only right most of the time.
Noddy
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> My point in short is this: there is no pressure for Ford to improve and
> so we'll just keep getting the same drivel, because ..
>
> 1) The touring cars are 'balanced' so that regardless of how good the
> base starting point, the result will be the same. Even with this they can
> hardly keep up. One big marketing pile of BS that smells appalling if you
> care to remove the peg from your nose.
Care to run that one by me again? :)
> 2) The taxi and company fleets don't particularly care about quality so
> much as running familiar (read old) cheap cars.
Um, not really.
Taxi & fleet buyers generally look at what offers them the best value in the
grand scheme of things, not just purchase price per unit, and in that view a
Falcadore is hard to beat.
I don't think too many of either are brand loyal...
> 3) Import tariffs still make them *look* better value to some of the
> sweaty masses who keep forgetting the enormous depreciation hit they take
> when driving one off a dealer's lot
Tariffs are an irrelevant "what if" game to the average guy who walks into a
dealership with cash in his hand. What *is* relevant is the sticker price
that he can buy for, and in that respect a Falcadore is good value for
money.
Depreciation effects everything....
> 4) The cultural fascination with 'size means value' which also now means
> a diesel belching 4WD makes you an upper class motorist.
In your view :)
I think your observations are pretty simplistic a bit left field myself.
Ford in Australia is certainly not in a position to call the shots, and they
will undoubtedly go under if they don't offer the buying public a product
they wish to purchase.
They made a bold decision with the AU in that they offered the public a car
with a good mechanical package that was adorned with questionable bodystyle,
and their sales have suffered accordingly. With the massive costs of
research, development & tooling for a uniquely Australian model that has a
limited sales potential of around 100,000 units a year, this is definitely
something they cannot afford to experience again.
In short, there is *every* pressure on Ford to improve :)
Regards,
Noddy.
CatharticF1
das...@optushome.com.au says...
>
> "CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
>
> > My point in short is this: there is no pressure for Ford to improve and
> > so we'll just keep getting the same drivel, because ..
> >
> > 1) The touring cars are 'balanced' so that regardless of how good the
> > base starting point, the result will be the same. Even with this they can
> > hardly keep up. One big marketing pile of BS that smells appalling if you
> > care to remove the peg from your nose.
>
> Care to run that one by me again? :)
You know, if the Falcon's don't have enough downforce at the front they
get a new spoiler etc..
>
> > 2) The taxi and company fleets don't particularly care about quality so
> > much as running familiar (read old) cheap cars.
>
> Um, not really.
>
> Taxi & fleet buyers generally look at what offers them the best value in the
> grand scheme of things, not just purchase price per unit, and in that view a
> Falcadore is hard to beat.
>
> I don't think too many of either are brand loyal...
>
They work with what they know, so Ford's 'rapid' technological
improvements present no issues.
> > 3) Import tariffs still make them *look* better value to some of the
> > sweaty masses who keep forgetting the enormous depreciation hit they take
> > when driving one off a dealer's lot
>
> Tariffs are an irrelevant "what if" game to the average guy who walks into a
> dealership with cash in his hand. What *is* relevant is the sticker price
> that he can buy for, and in that respect a Falcadore is good value for
> money.
>
> Depreciation effects everything....
>
That's misleading. Are you claiming that Falcons don't depreciate faster
than say Accord, Benz, BMW, Camry?
Tarriffs are not irrelevant. I'm all for supporting industries that are
efficient, but Ford Australia aren't.
> > 4) The cultural fascination with 'size means value' which also now means
> > a diesel belching 4WD makes you an upper class motorist.
>
> In your view :)
>
> I think your observations are pretty simplistic a bit left field myself.
> Ford in Australia is certainly not in a position to call the shots, and they
> will undoubtedly go under if they don't offer the buying public a product
> they wish to purchase.
>
> They made a bold decision with the AU in that they offered the public a car
> with a good mechanical package that was adorned with questionable bodystyle,
> and their sales have suffered accordingly. With the massive costs of
> research, development & tooling for a uniquely Australian model that has a
> limited sales potential of around 100,000 units a year, this is definitely
> something they cannot afford to experience again.
>
> In short, there is *every* pressure on Ford to improve :)
<sigh> I wish there was. But I don't see it. I remember saying to myself
20 years ago, "Well, if they can earn significant import dollars in
twenty years or so, good on 'em". It's not going to happen. There is no
excuse, so many other small countries manage it, and we do in other
industries. I am a car nut, and I want the best. Do they still have leaf
springs and pushrods somewhere in the range? It really is pathetic.
Noddy
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> You know, if the Falcon's don't have enough downforce at the front they
> get a new spoiler etc..
You've lost me on that one I'm afraid :)
> They work with what they know, so Ford's 'rapid' technological
> improvements present no issues.
Just for curiosity sake, how does the mechanical package in a current Falcon
differ to most other cars?
> That's misleading. Are you claiming that Falcons don't depreciate faster
> than say Accord, Benz, BMW, Camry?
Yes and no. An Accord or Camry, sure, but a Benz or BMW maybe don't suffer
from quite as drastic a value drop. Still, I've seen plenty of 5 year old
M3's at around 50% or less of their original selling price, so....
> Tarriffs are not irrelevant. I'm all for supporting industries that are
> efficient, but Ford Australia aren't.
I disagree. See below for why...
> <sigh> I wish there was. But I don't see it. I remember saying to myself
> 20 years ago, "Well, if they can earn significant import dollars in
> twenty years or so, good on 'em". It's not going to happen. There is no
> excuse, so many other small countries manage it, and we do in other
> industries. I am a car nut, and I want the best. Do they still have leaf
> springs and pushrods somewhere in the range? It really is pathetic.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you need to step back a
bit and take a broader look. I mean, name another country in the word that
has the automotive building infrastructure that we have here in this country
that is largely dependant on it's pitiful domestic market of 20 million for
it's continued existence?
Don't get me wrong, as I'm not a spokesman for the auto manufacturing
industry, but they're in business to make money and collectively they're one
of the country's largest employers. The problem they face is that their
market has an extremely limited capacity, and they need to cost effective if
they're going to survive. Sure we have a few pushrod engines and leaf spring
equipped models, but they serve their owners well for the money they pay and
there's plenty of alternatives if people don't like that.
Bear in mind that it costs anywhere up to a billion dollars to research,
develop and tool up to produce a new model, and with the prospect of sales
figures being quite low in relation to the expense required to produce the
cars, very few manufacturers in this country can afford to misjudge the
public's ideas like Ford did with the AU. Nor can they afford to offer every
conceivable bit of "modern technology" at bargain prices.
Protection of the local industry through tariffs is vital if we wish to see
our cars remain at affordable prices, be they locally built or imported
models. We've already seen some major manufacturers close plants and go
home, like Leyland, Chrysler & Nissan, while others like GMH have scaled
down and closed manufacturing plants in various states.
Unfortunately in the business world, there is no such thing as a level
playing field, and if tariffs were removed local manufacturing would
evaporate almost immediately. If you think that's a good thing, then think
again. You may not like locally built cars, but they do serve a purpose
other than meeting the needs of simple car buyers, and that is helping to
keep the price of competing imported models at a realistic level. Once the
local competition has been removed, foreign manufacturers can charge you
whatever they like for your car, and there's nothing you can do about it.
If you don't think that's a realistic scenario, then look up the history of
a company called Ebling...
Regards,
Noddy.
CatharticF1
das...@optushome.com.au says...
<snip>
> > 20 years ago, "Well, if they can earn significant import dollars in
> > twenty years or so, good on 'em". It's not going to happen. There is no
> > excuse, so many other small countries manage it, and we do in other
> > industries. I am a car nut, and I want the best. Do they still have leaf
> > springs and pushrods somewhere in the range? It really is pathetic.
>
> Don't take this the wrong way, but I really think you need to step back a
> bit and take a broader look. I mean, name another country in the word that
> has the automotive building infrastructure that we have here in this country
> that is largely dependant on it's pitiful domestic market of 20 million for
> it's continued existence?
>
> Don't get me wrong, as I'm not a spokesman for the auto manufacturing
> industry, but they're in business to make money and collectively they're one
> of the country's largest employers. The problem they face is that their
> market has an extremely limited capacity, and they need to cost effective if
> they're going to survive. Sure we have a few pushrod engines and leaf spring
> equipped models, but they serve their owners well for the money they pay and
> there's plenty of alternatives if people don't like that.
>
> Bear in mind that it costs anywhere up to a billion dollars to research,
> develop and tool up to produce a new model, and with the prospect of sales
> figures being quite low in relation to the expense required to produce the
> cars, very few manufacturers in this country can afford to misjudge the
> public's ideas like Ford did with the AU. Nor can they afford to offer every
> conceivable bit of "modern technology" at bargain prices.
Well, Maybe if Ford were more capable they could aim for more than just
the domestic market. That they have never been able to break out explains
much about them. They have access to many things that they choose not to
use, ranging from components all the way to full cars. They have made
their bed, and shouldn't be protected from lying on it! ;-p
>
> Protection of the local industry through tariffs is vital if we wish to see
> our cars remain at affordable prices, be they locally built or imported
> models. We've already seen some major manufacturers close plants and go
> home, like Leyland, Chrysler & Nissan, while others like GMH have scaled
> down and closed manufacturing plants in various states.
>
> Unfortunately in the business world, there is no such thing as a level
> playing field, and if tariffs were removed local manufacturing would
> evaporate almost immediately. If you think that's a good thing, then think
> again. You may not like locally built cars, but they do serve a purpose
> other than meeting the needs of simple car buyers, and that is helping to
> keep the price of competing imported models at a realistic level. Once the
> local competition has been removed, foreign manufacturers can charge you
> whatever they like for your car, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>
> If you don't think that's a realistic scenario, then look up the history of
> a company called Ebling...
>
I'm not completely against them (tariffs), but in Ford's case it's a
waste of time. Holden do deserve to stick around, they have raised their
game, and why pay to prop up any more than we need?
Noddy
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> Well, Maybe if Ford were more capable they could aim for more than just
> the domestic market. That they have never been able to break out explains
> much about them. They have access to many things that they choose not to
> use, ranging from components all the way to full cars. They have made
> their bed, and shouldn't be protected from lying on it! ;-p
Ford *are* capable. Do you honestly think they aren't?
They probably have access to a greater wealth of product and material than
any other manufacuter on the planet, but for whatever reason, they're doing
what they see is best for our local market, and financial viability is
probably the biggest one.
It would be quite easy for them to announce that the AU is the last locally
built Falcon and start importing American or European models full time, it
would probably make better business sense too, but were would our local
industry be if they did?
Whether they make good cars or bad ones is an argumment for the ages, but
the important thing is that they're making them here, and I for one am very
glad that they are.
> I'm not completely against them (tariffs), but in Ford's case it's a
> waste of time. Holden do deserve to stick around, they have raised their
> game, and why pay to prop up any more than we need?
I'm sorry, but I find this particular comment to be pretty weird :)
The reason I do is because I can't for the life of me see what Holden has
miraculously done to "raise their game" that Ford Australia has not,
especially when you consider that the two companies have competed along side
each other neck and neck for the last almost half a century, and it's one I
find very puzzling in light of your obvious dislike of "antiquated" models,
as the Commodore is clearly the most Jurassic car built in this country.
I really don't know what it is about the locally built Falcon that you see
as so wrong, but if you honestly think the Commodore is a superior product
then I don't think you do either.
Regards,
Noddy.
CatharticF1
das...@optushome.com.au says...
>
> "CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
>
> > Well, Maybe if Ford were more capable they could aim for more than just
> > the domestic market. That they have never been able to break out explains
> > much about them. They have access to many things that they choose not to
> > use, ranging from components all the way to full cars. They have made
> > their bed, and shouldn't be protected from lying on it! ;-p
>
> Ford *are* capable. Do you honestly think they aren't?
>
> They probably have access to a greater wealth of product and material than
> any other manufacuter on the planet, but for whatever reason, they're doing
> what they see is best for our local market, and financial viability is
> probably the biggest one.
>
> It would be quite easy for them to announce that the AU is the last locally
> built Falcon and start importing American or European models full time, it
> would probably make better business sense too, but were would our local
> industry be if they did?
>
> Whether they make good cars or bad ones is an argumment for the ages, but
> the important thing is that they're making them here, and I for one am very
> glad that they are.
Well - I just disagree. At least partly. Your argument seems to suggest
that given the choice they should make worse cars (and use worse
components) than they could import to keep the local industry alive. If
they are not competitive in quality and price, but merely in surviving as
a car nut I see that as appalling!
> > I'm not completely against them (tariffs), but in Ford's case it's a
> > waste of time. Holden do deserve to stick around, they have raised their
> > game, and why pay to prop up any more than we need?
>
> I'm sorry, but I find this particular comment to be pretty weird :)
>
> The reason I do is because I can't for the life of me see what Holden has
> miraculously done to "raise their game" that Ford Australia has not,
> especially when you consider that the two companies have competed along side
> each other neck and neck for the last almost half a century, and it's one I
> find very puzzling in light of your obvious dislike of "antiquated" models,
> as the Commodore is clearly the most Jurassic car built in this country.
>
> I really don't know what it is about the locally built Falcon that you see
> as so wrong, but if you honestly think the Commodore is a superior product
> then I don't think you do either.
>
It isn't just the current Falcon, it's the whole fabulous history. GMH
actually export, and receive some kudos for so doing in my book - and yes
I believe the Commodore has been over the past 5 - 10 years a far better
product.
But let's get serious - take the AU, it was an embarrassment in
aesthetic, engineering and sales terms. How can you support a company
that is plainly so incompetent as to go through the whole design to
production phase with such a lemon in this day and age?
Had not taxi / company / government fleets bought them because they got
low prices and saw them as a similar maintenance proposition to the
older models, Ford Australia would likely have closed their doors. I
prefer to see car making as an art, not another whitegood. Ford Australia
plainly don't care. They'll just peddle the metal in fearlessness at any
real criticism because the local media and magazines want their
advertising money and would be seen (as am I) as being un-Australian or
narrow minded for daring to point out the bleeding obvious.
Make better cars - end of story. Leaf springs, live axles and pushrod
driven valvetrains. They're just not serious.
Noddy
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> Well - I just disagree. At least partly. Your argument seems to suggest
> that given the choice they should make worse cars (and use worse
> components) than they could import to keep the local industry alive. If
> they are not competitive in quality and price, but merely in surviving as
> a car nut I see that as appalling!
No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with the Falcon for the money
you pay for it. It's quite within the capability of Ford Australia to build
a more "refined" car full of the latest whiz bang mod con's, but then you
won't be able to buy it for the money you're paying now, and that wouldn't
please a lot of people who see a car such as the Falcon or Commodore as good
all round value.
Cars such as the local big two aren't to everyone's tastes, obviously, and
those who don't prefer them buy something else as there is no shortage of
choices. However, changing them to a point where they appeal to those who
wouldn't otherwise buy them will probably move them away from the people who
favour them now, and that would cuase a loss in sales that's greater than
the number they're trying to gain.
> It isn't just the current Falcon, it's the whole fabulous history. GMH
> actually export, and receive some kudos for so doing in my book - and yes
> I believe the Commodore has been over the past 5 - 10 years a far better
> product.
Really?
Spend some time in the service industry and you'll really see which of the
two has been the more problematic car over the years :)
Export ability doesn't mean a lot to me for one very important reason, and
that is because it's not always an indication of the merit of the product.
For example, Holden have been exporting cars since the early '60's to places
like South Africa, the Middle East and the The Philipines. They didn't do so
because things like a HR sedan was a brilliant car in it's day, but because
they filled a General Motors gap in these countries at a competitive price
couldn't be as easily met by using models from other places.
Ford, on the other hand, have had an entirely different approach in that
they've had manufacturing plants to service virtually every continent on the
planet, and often with unique models. As a result, there's been no great
need to export from places like Australia, as doing so would only detract
from the sales of Ford products in other countries.
> But let's get serious - take the AU, it was an embarrassment in
> aesthetic, engineering and sales terms. How can you support a company
> that is plainly so incompetent as to go through the whole design to
> production phase with such a lemon in this day and age?
Um, excuse me, the *only* terms in which the AU could be considered a lemon
are in styling, and that has affected sales. Quite simply, Ford misjudged
the public and got the look of the car wrong, and it cost them dearly.
Admittedly, it is growing on some people (I can't stand it myself), and
becoming more acceptable with every passing day, but it's still a love or
hate look. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the mechanical
package at all and it's quite a good car.
Holden has raced to market leadership with their VT & VX Commodores though
the lack of an appealing alternative, not because their product is vastly
superior.
> Had not taxi / company / government fleets bought them because they got
> low prices and saw them as a similar maintenance proposition to the
> older models, Ford Australia would likely have closed their doors. I
> prefer to see car making as an art, not another whitegood. Ford Australia
> plainly don't care. They'll just peddle the metal in fearlessness at any
> real criticism because the local media and magazines want their
> advertising money and would be seen (as am I) as being un-Australian or
> narrow minded for daring to point out the bleeding obvious.
I'm begining to think you're a troll with crap like this :)
You obviously have an anti Ford bent for whatever reason that may be, but to
suggest that a multi billion dollar local industry that relies on sales to
survive doesn't care what the public thinks of it's products is ludicrous.
Car manufacturing largely is an art, and it's often dificult to pick what
you think the public will like and you don't always get it right. Ford did
with the previous EF & EL models, but didn't with the AU series. Holden took
a bold gamble with the downsized Commodore in the late '70's and it took
quite a while before it paid off, and it nearly sent them broke along the
way.
If anything, Holden has taken the easy option these days and relied on the
styling tastes of other countries to detirmine what suits us here, and while
that may be a gamble in itself, I don't think it's anywhere near as risky or
aventurous as Ford's descision to continue to produce uniquely Australian
cars.
> Make better cars - end of story. Leaf springs, live axles and pushrod
> driven valvetrains. They're just not serious.
Well, with comments like this I get the distinct impression that you're a
"technology for the sake of it" kind of person without any real
understanding of the benefits, or otherwise, of the technology itself. Nor
do you seem to know much of the cars you're criticising. If you did, you'd
be fully aware of the fact that you can buy a Ford Falcon in Australia today
without a solid rear axle, a leaf spring or a push rod anywhere in sight.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to say the same for the Commodore :)
Regards,
Noddy.
LS1Dan--
or a push rod anywhere in sight.
Apart from the V8's.
:-)
Noddy
"LS1Dan--" <N...@noway.com> wrote in message
> Apart from the V8's.
> :-)
That is true and I don't deny it at all, but you can at least buy a Falcon
without any of those features :)
Regards,
Noddy.
LS1Dan--
True there. Just I sort of wished that the missus stag has Pushrods
instead of the OHC per bank less to worry about the timing chain going
snap and making an expensive failure. But then again I am not use to
pommy cars so I have a right to be weary of them.
CatharticF1
das...@optushome.com.au says...
<snip>
> that is because it's not always an indication of the merit of the product.
> For example, Holden have been exporting cars since the early '60's to places
> like South Africa, the Middle East and the The Philipines. They didn't do so
> because things like a HR sedan was a brilliant car in it's day, but because
> they filled a General Motors gap in these countries at a competitive price
> couldn't be as easily met by using models from other places.
>
> Ford, on the other hand, have had an entirely different approach in that
> they've had manufacturing plants to service virtually every continent on the
> planet, and often with unique models. As a result, there's been no great
> need to export from places like Australia, as doing so would only detract
> from the sales of Ford products in other countries.
Well I'm happy to hear this - talk about damning with feint praise! Are
you going to pretend Ford Australia and Ford Worldwide would not be
better off if they were worthy of export? Ford Australia are *still*
incapable of this, remember the Capri?
> > But let's get serious - take the AU, it was an embarrassment in
> > aesthetic, engineering and sales terms. How can you support a company
> > that is plainly so incompetent as to go through the whole design to
> > production phase with such a lemon in this day and age?
>
> Um, excuse me, the *only* terms in which the AU could be considered a lemon
> are in styling, and that has affected sales.
<snip>
I disagree with this. My impression was that the car was unreliable and
poorly bolted together to go with the agricultural engineering.
> Holden has raced to market leadership with their VT & VX Commodores though
> the lack of an appealing alternative, not because their product is vastly
> superior.
I disagree again, but regardless of why Holden deserve their place here
by comparison.
<snip>
> I'm begining to think you're a troll with crap like this :)
>
> You obviously have an anti Ford bent for whatever reason that may be, but to
> suggest that a multi billion dollar local industry that relies on sales to
> survive doesn't care what the public thinks of it's products is ludicrous.
Let's say the *informed* public. Ford make some great cars : Puma, Focus,
new Mondeo. It's not about Ford (Worldwide) ..
> Car manufacturing largely is an art, and it's often dificult to pick what
> you think the public will like and you don't always get it right. Ford did
> with the previous EF & EL models, but didn't with the AU series. Holden took
> a bold gamble with the downsized Commodore in the late '70's and it took
> quite a while before it paid off, and it nearly sent them broke along the
> way.
This would seem to be getting silly. You say car manufacturing is an art
and then defend the Falcon? Is it abstract art? Holden were adventurous
(comparatively) and they deserve some credit.
> If anything, Holden has taken the easy option these days and relied on the
> styling tastes of other countries to detirmine what suits us here, and while
> that may be a gamble in itself, I don't think it's anywhere near as risky or
> aventurous as Ford's descision to continue to produce uniquely Australian
> cars.
Ahh - this bit's wonderful: 'Ford's descision [sic] to continue to
produce uniquely Australian cars' What on earth does that mean? Use of
older technology? Inability to innovate? Inability to compete
internationally? Pushing the car as a 'Fair Dinkum' Aussie V8? These are
all cop outs.
> > Make better cars - end of story. Leaf springs, live axles and pushrod
> > driven valvetrains. They're just not serious.
>
> Well, with comments like this I get the distinct impression that you're a
> "technology for the sake of it" kind of person without any real
> understanding of the benefits, or otherwise, of the technology itself. Nor
> do you seem to know much of the cars you're criticising. If you did, you'd
> be fully aware of the fact that you can buy a Ford Falcon in Australia today
> without a solid rear axle, a leaf spring or a push rod anywhere in sight.
Well to be fair - you would know I never said that these were used in all
of their cars at all. My first car was a 1974 Fiat 124CC. It had disc
brakes, DOHC an independent rear end with coils over dampers. In *most*
respects it led the Falcon by 20 odd years. This is indefensible!
What are the benefits? You are plainly not unlearned, so you would
understand that chassis rigidity, suspension and engine design all
contribute to making the car potentially more efficient, pleasant to
drive, safer and reliable. That should be enough.
A perfect example is axle tramp on leaf sprung car. Have you driven a
Ford lately? (Yes I know the Holden ute has them too.. I'm just
describing a technological benefit.)
Noddy
"LS1Dan--" <N...@noway.com> wrote in message
> True there. Just I sort of wished that the missus stag has Pushrods
> instead of the OHC per bank less to worry about the timing chain going
> snap and making an expensive failure. But then again I am not use to
> pommy cars so I have a right to be weary of them.
Well, I'd say you'd be pretty right to be wary of them if you worked on them
everyday, as they don't exactly have the greatest reputation for
reliability.
Some are better than others of course, but some are pretty average too.
Jaguar's are appalling :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Noddy
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> Well I'm happy to hear this - talk about damning with feint praise! Are
> you going to pretend Ford Australia and Ford Worldwide would not be
> better off if they were worthy of export? Ford Australia are *still*
> incapable of this, remember the Capri?
Which one? Are you talking about the *English* car of the late '60's that
didn't cut it here, or the modified *Japanese* convertible of the mid '80's
that didn't cut it here either?
I think you're missing a couple of very basic points.
The cars certainly are capable of being exported as they stand today and
there are markets where they would fit in quite well. I mean, let's be
realistic here for a minute. If the Commodore can find buyers in overseas
markets, then the Falcon is likely to do just as well. The only thing the
Falcon has got going against it in comparison to the Commodore is it's
somewhat questionable styling, and that doesn't make it a bad car.
Just an unattractive one to some people. It's not everyone's idea of a good
looking car, but there is certainly nothing wrong with it's mechanical
package or build quality compared to the Commodore. In fact, I'd go so far
as to say that it's slightly better overall. Let's face it: If things like
the Taurus can sell anywhere then there is hope for the AU :)
The other point that probably has more influence on such things is that Ford
has a very good market penetration in just about every country that you can
buy a car. In fact, they're a little bit like Coca Cola in that it would be
difficult to go to any country that sells cars and not be able to buy a Ford
Vehicle of some type or another.
With that in mind, it's a bit like being the owner of a series of stores in
a few different areas. It's hardly worth your while to push sales from one
store in an area where you already have an existing one for fear of it being
detrimental to the existing store. In other words, you may increase sales
from one store but it will cost you in another, while gaining very little
overall in the process.
> I disagree with this. My impression was that the car was unreliable and
> poorly bolted together to go with the agricultural engineering.
And you got this impression by....?
I can pretty much guarantee you here that there is nothing at all generally
unreliable about the AU's mechanical package, nor would the engineering
level of the car be considered as agricultural. It's very middle of the road
actually, being neither backwards or overly advanced in any particular way,
and would be best described as quite mainstream. The build quality of the
cars is comparable with anything else in their range, and better than most
for the money.
I'm just taking a guess here, but it would seem to me that you just don't
like the look of the car, and assume that the mechanical & build quality
aspects of it are as bad as you find the appearance be. It's difficult for
me to reach any other conclusion as it appears that you have a very obvious
lack of knowledge about the cars in general
> I disagree again, but regardless of why Holden deserve their place here
> by comparison.
Well, perhaps you can offer an opinion of why you think this is so.
> Let's say the *informed* public. Ford make some great cars : Puma, Focus,
> new Mondeo. It's not about Ford (Worldwide) ..
I personally think the Mondeo is an ugly pile of crap that I would be
interested in if I got one for free, but everyone's entitled to their
opinion I guess :)
>This would seem to be getting silly. You say car manufacturing is an art
> and then defend the Falcon? Is it abstract art? Holden were adventurous
> (comparatively) and they deserve some credit.
Adventurous? :)
They simply decided to use someone else's design without any real input of
their own other than to cram in their prehistoric mechanicals, and it nearly
sent them broke in the process. I mean, shit, how hard can their task be?
That's exactly what they've been doing since 1978, and the only time they bo
thered with a "modern" mechanical package was just for a stop gap model in
the VL range.
My idea of adventurous would be designing a totally new and original car
from the ground up every few years and producing something unique, not a
local imitation of an overseas model. you may not like the look of the AU,
and to be honest I don't either, but it *is* a uniquely Australian car with
a locally designed engine that is very good indeed.
> Ahh - this bit's wonderful: 'Ford's descision [sic] to continue to
> produce uniquely Australian cars' What on earth does that mean? Use of
> older technology? Inability to innovate? Inability to compete
> internationally? Pushing the car as a 'Fair Dinkum' Aussie V8? These are
> all cop outs.
Just so I know that you have at least some idea of what you're talking
about, can you give me a few examples of this "older technology" that you
think infests every Ford in the country?
To my mind, the only thing about Fords being built today that's "old" is the
Windsor engine, but it's been a hell of a lot more reliable in it's last 40
years than the GenIII has in the few years it's been in the Commodore :)
> Well to be fair - you would know I never said that these were used in all
> of their cars at all. My first car was a 1974 Fiat 124CC. It had disc
> brakes, DOHC an independent rear end with coils over dampers. In *most*
> respects it led the Falcon by 20 odd years. This is indefensible!
Yeah, and it was also almost double the price of a base Falcon in those days
too, but the *real* indefensible fact is that Fiat bother to make cars :)
Unless I miss my guess, I think I know who you are now and that I've had
these arguments with you before. It was as much of a waste of time then too
:)
> What are the benefits? You are plainly not unlearned, so you would
> understand that chassis rigidity, suspension and engine design all
> contribute to making the car potentially more efficient, pleasant to
> drive, safer and reliable. That should be enough.
It largely depends on your definition of all of these points. For a great
many, a car like a Falcon works well, but then again only an idiot would buy
a large family sedan like a Falcon and expect it to drive like a sports car.
> A perfect example is axle tramp on leaf sprung car. Have you driven a
> Ford lately? (Yes I know the Holden ute has them too.. I'm just
> describing a technological benefit.)
Again, your lack of knowledge of the cars shows here.
The only Falcons you can get these days with leaf springs are the utility or
the station wagon. The utility has leaf springs for obvious reasons, but the
wagon is a little less obvious to most. The reason why Ford decided to
employ a leaf spring rear on the wagon was for increased interior space. The
coil sprung Commodore wagon loses a lot by comparison with it's spring tower
components eating up interior space that the Falcon wagon retains, and the
Falcon has a vastly better interior dimension making it a better vehicle for
the purpose of which it was designed.
I've driven a few AU wagons, and apart from not suffering from the "pissed
rear wheels" complaint that the Commodore's cheap irs system causes, they
generally ride quite well. you don't tend to get much axle hop even when
standing on the things pretty hard. You can induce it if you really try I
expect, but I also expect that not too many wagon buyers would want to.
Still, if you do, you're driving the vehicle outside the limits it was
designed for anyway and that's *your* fault, not the fault of the vehicle...
Regards,
Noddy.
LS1Dan--
>
> "LS1Dan--" <N...@noway.com> wrote in message
>
> > True there. Just I sort of wished that the missus stag has Pushrods
> > instead of the OHC per bank less to worry about the timing chain going
> > snap and making an expensive failure. But then again I am not use to
> > pommy cars so I have a right to be weary of them.
>
> Well, I'd say you'd be pretty right to be wary of them if you worked on them
> everyday, as they don't exactly have the greatest reputation for
> reliability.
So far it has been pretty good I have only driven it once! woowooo lucky
me :-) I think I rather stick to my Commy's. Even though I have lent the
VS senator to one of my cousins for a few months. (he might buy it off
me). :-)
>
> Some are better than others of course, but some are pretty average too.
> Jaguar's are appalling :)
Yeah I have a soft spots for Jag's but not that soft. :-)
Noddy
"LS1Dan--" <N...@noway.com> wrote in message
> Yeah I have a soft spots for Jag's but not that soft. :-)
Jag's have a soft spot too, it's called the *engine* :)
Regards,
Noddy.
Kieron Murphy
wrote:
>> Um, excuse me, the *only* terms in which the AU could be considered a lemon
>> are in styling, and that has affected sales.
>
><snip>
>
>I disagree with this. My impression was that the car was unreliable and
>poorly bolted together to go with the agricultural engineering.
You can disagree, but its the obvious truth, Australians in general
are conservative by nature, the AU was to adventerous. Maybe the US
would have loved it?
Poorly bolted together/poor engineering, prior to the AU, the Falcon
was a good seller, your argument doesn't hold.
>
>> Holden has raced to market leadership with their VT & VX Commodores though
>> the lack of an appealing alternative, not because their product is vastly
>> superior.
>
>I disagree again, but regardless of why Holden deserve their place here
>by comparison.
Noddy is correct, if you put the AU bodyshell onto the Commodore
platform with a Holden badge, do you think it would be a runaway sales
success?
Holden were bailed out in the 80's due to being on the brink of
bankrupcy and Ford were going great guns, did Ford deserve there place
here by comparison back then?
Fact is they both deserve there place in Aust. If Ford Aust went, the
Commodore would have no reason to move forward - whats GM's motto -
we are in the business of making money not cars.
>> You obviously have an anti Ford bent for whatever reason that may be, but to
>> suggest that a multi billion dollar local industry that relies on sales to
>> survive doesn't care what the public thinks of it's products is ludicrous.
>
>Let's say the *informed* public. Ford make some great cars : Puma, Focus,
>new Mondeo. It's not about Ford (Worldwide) ..
Sure they do, and the Falcon technically is no better or worse than
its competition which is whats really being discussed here.
>> Car manufacturing largely is an art, and it's often dificult to pick what
>> you think the public will like and you don't always get it right. Ford did
>> with the previous EF & EL models, but didn't with the AU series. Holden took
>> a bold gamble with the downsized Commodore in the late '70's and it took
>> quite a while before it paid off, and it nearly sent them broke along the
>> way.
>
>This would seem to be getting silly. You say car manufacturing is an art
>and then defend the Falcon? Is it abstract art? Holden were adventurous
>(comparatively) and they deserve some credit.
Holden in fact were not adventerous, they evolved the current
Commodore styling (very succesfully) the AU was adventerous by
comparison and was unsuccesful.
>> If anything, Holden has taken the easy option these days and relied on the
>> styling tastes of other countries to detirmine what suits us here, and while
>> that may be a gamble in itself, I don't think it's anywhere near as risky or
>> aventurous as Ford's descision to continue to produce uniquely Australian
>> cars.
>
>Ahh - this bit's wonderful: 'Ford's descision [sic] to continue to
>produce uniquely Australian cars' What on earth does that mean? Use of
>older technology? Inability to innovate? Inability to compete
>internationally? Pushing the car as a 'Fair Dinkum' Aussie V8? These are
>all cop outs.
You do have a way of twisting things, so Holden using a Euro body,
ancient V6 from the US, US trans, dated IRS is innovative?
Do Commodores compete internationally, or are they a niche car?
Holden have been clever, they have succesfully pieced together a good
looking car + they kept the Holden image flying high in motor racing,
Ford oficially dropped out in 1974 and didn't return until Polites
took over.
>Well to be fair - you would know I never said that these were used in all
>of their cars at all. My first car was a 1974 Fiat 124CC. It had disc
>brakes, DOHC an independent rear end with coils over dampers. In *most*
>respects it led the Falcon by 20 odd years. This is indefensible!
So now we are comparing a mass produced family sedan to a niche Sports
car that probably didn't even have the straight line performance of a
XB Falcon 500?
I'm quite sure the 124 led in the rust and unreliability stakes too
:-)
>What are the benefits? You are plainly not unlearned, so you would
>understand that chassis rigidity, suspension and engine design all
>contribute to making the car potentially more efficient, pleasant to
>drive, safer and reliable. That should be enough.
Regardless of whats underneath, its the end result that counts,
FalComs are so similar its a matter of splitting hairs or preferences
when comparing.
>A perfect example is axle tramp on leaf sprung car. Have you driven a
>Ford lately? (Yes I know the Holden ute has them too.. I'm just
>describing a technological benefit.)
No leaf springs on Commodore ute, or are you referring to the Rodeo? I
believe Holden are working on a leaf sprung Commodore ute/tray top
though, funny that - giving the market what it needs!!
I'll agree that leafs on wagons is stretching things in this day and
age though.
The AV is rumoured to have double wishbone IRS as standard and DOHC,
which they actually developed back in the 80's for the EA but found it
unnecessary to use at the time.
Kieron
John Hudson
John Hudson
Noddy
"John Hudson" <hu...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:Bi6z8.63639
> What's wrong with the engine?
It would honestly be easier to list what *isn't* wrong with it.
Jaguars are very poorly engineered and extremely unreliable, and have been
for decades...
Regards,
Noddy.
CatharticF1
das...@optushome.com.au says...
<snip>
> > I disagree again, but regardless of why Holden deserve their place here
> > by comparison.
>
> Well, perhaps you can offer an opinion of why you think this is so.
>
They have more sensibly made use of externally available technology imho,
and the attention they have given to tuning the chassis / suspension in
their sporty versions shows they are trying. That the Monaro could have
been reborn by enthusiasts within the company is all the proof you need.
These guys do it for the right reasons.
<snip>
> I personally think the Mondeo is an ugly pile of crap that I would be
> interested in if I got one for free, but everyone's entitled to their
> opinion I guess :)
>
It's not pretty particularly, but compared to the Falcon ...
> >This would seem to be getting silly. You say car manufacturing is an art
> > and then defend the Falcon? Is it abstract art? Holden were adventurous
> > (comparatively) and they deserve some credit.
>
> Adventurous? :)
>
> They simply decided to use someone else's design without any real input of
> their own other than to cram in their prehistoric mechanicals, and it nearly
> sent them broke in the process. I mean, shit, how hard can their task be?
> That's exactly what they've been doing since 1978, and the only time they bo
> thered with a "modern" mechanical package was just for a stop gap model in
> the VL range.
>
> My idea of adventurous would be designing a totally new and original car
> from the ground up every few years and producing something unique, not a
> local imitation of an overseas model. you may not like the look of the AU,
> and to be honest I don't either, but it *is* a uniquely Australian car with
> a locally designed engine that is very good indeed.
The cars would be better if both Holden and Ford *did* base their designs
on o/s models. Don't reinvent the wheel, balance and polish it. But don't
ignore what's available and wheel out something worse and act surprised
when someone points it out.
>
> > Ahh - this bit's wonderful: 'Ford's descision [sic] to continue to
> > produce uniquely Australian cars' What on earth does that mean? Use of
> > older technology? Inability to innovate? Inability to compete
> > internationally? Pushing the car as a 'Fair Dinkum' Aussie V8? These are
> > all cop outs.
>
> Just so I know that you have at least some idea of what you're talking
> about, can you give me a few examples of this "older technology" that you
> think infests every Ford in the country?
>
Well as you yourself say, leaf springs in the station wagon. But that you
justify a suspension system designed for horse drawn carriages says much.
Every other manufacturer on the planet is producing wonderful multi link
rear suspensions. Ford included - but not here, no...
<snip>
> > Well to be fair - you would know I never said that these were used in all
> > of their cars at all. My first car was a 1974 Fiat 124CC. It had disc
> > brakes, DOHC an independent rear end with coils over dampers. In *most*
> > respects it led the Falcon by 20 odd years. This is indefensible!
>
> Yeah, and it was also almost double the price of a base Falcon in those days
> too, but the *real* indefensible fact is that Fiat bother to make cars :)
>
> Unless I miss my guess, I think I know who you are now and that I've had
> these arguments with you before. It was as much of a waste of time then too
> :)
Actually, hardly ever stuck my nose in this group, so it wasn't me -
perhaps some other person possessing rare insight ... ;-p
>
> > What are the benefits? You are plainly not unlearned, so you would
> > understand that chassis rigidity, suspension and engine design all
> > contribute to making the car potentially more efficient, pleasant to
> > drive, safer and reliable. That should be enough.
>
> It largely depends on your definition of all of these points. For a great
> many, a car like a Falcon works well, but then again only an idiot would buy
> a large family sedan like a Falcon and expect it to drive like a sports car.
Plenty of manufacturers make cars that are more stable and predictable.
> > A perfect example is axle tramp on leaf sprung car. Have you driven a
> > Ford lately? (Yes I know the Holden ute has them too.. I'm just
> > describing a technological benefit.)
>
> Again, your lack of knowledge of the cars shows here.
>
> The only Falcons you can get these days with leaf springs are the utility or
> the station wagon. The utility has leaf springs for obvious reasons, but the
> wagon is a little less obvious to most. The reason why Ford decided to
> employ a leaf spring rear on the wagon was for increased interior space. The
> coil sprung Commodore wagon loses a lot by comparison with it's spring tower
> components eating up interior space that the Falcon wagon retains, and the
> Falcon has a vastly better interior dimension making it a better vehicle for
> the purpose of which it was designed.
>
> I've driven a few AU wagons, and apart from not suffering from the "pissed
> rear wheels" complaint that the Commodore's cheap irs system causes, they
> generally ride quite well. you don't tend to get much axle hop even when
> standing on the things pretty hard. You can induce it if you really try I
> expect, but I also expect that not too many wagon buyers would want to.
>
As you have repeatedly done, you've made incorrect assumptions based on
my statement. I didn't say all Falcons had leaf springs..
We approach this from different directions. You see cars as whitegoods, I
see them with a primary purpose of being driven, and when that isn't put
first they've got it wrong in my book. Sports car or family sedan, pay a
little attention to detail when you design them!
The Falcon is a Washing Machine, or Fridge - but it isn't a car. Same for
the Vectra lest you be concerned about my impartiality again. Cars are
exemplified by such wonderful devices as the Boxster, MX5, previous
Integra Type R, the Ford Puma, Clio 172, MR2, Elise, VX220.
Plenty of sedans too, the IS200 and Accord Type R (not here sadly..) -
the HSV GTS does pretty well and Holden are to be commended for that.
By a copy of 'Evo' and you'll see what I mean, and doubtless be
dismissive of someone who expects cars to be more than an appliance.
If the Falcon is the measure of what the Australian car industry is
capable of, I have no interest in saving it. The horseless carriage
lives...
I might pop back in here again one day ...!
CatharticF1
says...
<snip>
> >I disagree with this. My impression was that the car was unreliable and
> >poorly bolted together to go with the agricultural engineering.
>
> You can disagree, but its the obvious truth, Australians in general
> are conservative by nature, the AU was to adventerous. Maybe the US
> would have loved it?
> Poorly bolted together/poor engineering, prior to the AU, the Falcon
> was a good seller, your argument doesn't hold.
You mean perhaps the EA?
;-p
<snip>
> >Let's say the *informed* public. Ford make some great cars : Puma, Focus,
> >new Mondeo. It's not about Ford (Worldwide) ..
>
> Sure they do, and the Falcon technically is no better or worse than
> its competition which is whats really being discussed here.
Can't we be bothered to draw something from Ford's gene pool elsewhere.
The Falcon is an antiquated inbred. You could say the same about the
Commodore, and that is not without some truth. I'd just prefer we had
cars we could be proud of instead of getting defensive about.
<snip>
> Holden in fact were not adventerous, they evolved the current
> Commodore styling (very succesfully) the AU was adventerous by
> comparison and was unsuccesful.
Well they got it right, sometimes this is about leading and sometimes it
is about following. They based their design likely enough on what was
happening with the Taurus and Scorpio with a poor attempt at 'edge'
styling. Not very sensible, and I disagree that it was original.
>
> >> If anything, Holden has taken the easy option these days and relied on the
> >> styling tastes of other countries to detirmine what suits us here, and while
> >> that may be a gamble in itself, I don't think it's anywhere near as risky or
> >> aventurous as Ford's descision to continue to produce uniquely Australian
> >> cars.
> >
> >Ahh - this bit's wonderful: 'Ford's descision [sic] to continue to
> >produce uniquely Australian cars' What on earth does that mean? Use of
> >older technology? Inability to innovate? Inability to compete
> >internationally? Pushing the car as a 'Fair Dinkum' Aussie V8? These are
> >all cop outs.
>
> You do have a way of twisting things, so Holden using a Euro body,
> ancient V6 from the US, US trans, dated IRS is innovative?
> Do Commodores compete internationally, or are they a niche car?
>
> Holden have been clever, they have succesfully pieced together a good
> looking car + they kept the Holden image flying high in motor racing,
> Ford oficially dropped out in 1974 and didn't return until Polites
> took over.
Your last paragraph sums up my point. Oh and Holden aren't perfect
either, but they seem to better directed.
> >Well to be fair - you would know I never said that these were used in all
> >of their cars at all. My first car was a 1974 Fiat 124CC. It had disc
> >brakes, DOHC an independent rear end with coils over dampers. In *most*
> >respects it led the Falcon by 20 odd years. This is indefensible!
>
> So now we are comparing a mass produced family sedan to a niche Sports
> car that probably didn't even have the straight line performance of a
> XB Falcon 500?
> I'm quite sure the 124 led in the rust and unreliability stakes too
> :-)
The car was 11 years old when I bought it, and it still had higher
technology than most new Australian cars. How long should technology take
to migrate to the mass market? 2 - 5 years maybe, but not more than 20!
<snip>
> I'll agree that leafs on wagons is stretching things in this day and
> age though.
>
> The AV is rumoured to have double wishbone IRS as standard and DOHC,
> which they actually developed back in the 80's for the EA but found it
> unnecessary to use at the time.
That would be nice actually. I honestly believe that if you capture the
imagination of the enthusiasts, the rest will follow. Make the ordinary
cars actually enjoyable to drive, it would be a wonderful world!
LS1Dan--
Especially the V12's anyone for metal spagbol? :-)
phreeky
leave the EA alone! i have one, i like it. ok, it has its faults.
> Can't we be bothered to draw something from Ford's gene pool elsewhere.
> The Falcon is an antiquated inbred. You could say the same about the
> Commodore, and that is not without some truth. I'd just prefer we had
> cars we could be proud of instead of getting defensive about.
antique? be more specific will you! i've been reading through your posts,
you're yet to be specific as to what is so antique about them!
firstly, take a car and look at how it performs the tasks for which it was
designed. don't compare it to sports cars. that'd be like comparing the
falcons handling to that of a truck.
> Well they got it right, sometimes this is about leading and sometimes it
> is about following. They based their design likely enough on what was
> happening with the Taurus and Scorpio with a poor attempt at 'edge'
> styling. Not very sensible, and I disagree that it was original.
who gives a shit about its styling. yes, it means a lot in terms on sales,
and plays a part in whether it was successful in marketing terms, but we're
talking about mechanics...
> Your last paragraph sums up my point. Oh and Holden aren't perfect
> either, but they seem to better directed.
they are far more directed at young hoons. yes, i said it, holden catch the
guys driving around in their v8s thanks to the v8 super cars. there is no
problem with it, it gets them their sales. and in now way does it mean that
all hoons drive holdens, or all holden drivers are hoons. but i'm sure you
know what i mean.
they are after people who are simply worrying about their image, not the
products performance (not necessarily sports performance, performance of
completing its tasks).
> The car was 11 years old when I bought it, and it still had higher
> technology than most new Australian cars. How long should technology take
> to migrate to the mass market? 2 - 5 years maybe, but not more than 20!
put that money into a car that size, designed and built by ford and it would
be no worse than a car of another manufacturer. you're becoming a pain in
the arse for not realising that cars are built according to a budget, so
that they can be afforded by people in certain financial positions.
i am one who would prefer some certain jap cars because i have sports
performance at a budget in mind. but until i finish uni, i plan on keeping
my reliable, relatively good handling and powerful EA falcon. although the
manuals are more rare, these cars can be picked up for a few thousand
dollars, keep up with most things on the road, are comfortable, fairly safe
and reliable and can do all this with 5 people in the car. it will last me
another 2 years i'm sure. do you think this is not good value for money?
Noddy
"CatharticF1" <efer...@heaven.net> wrote in message
> They have more sensibly made use of externally available technology imho,
> and the attention they have given to tuning the chassis / suspension in
> their sporty versions shows they are trying. That the Monaro could have
> been reborn by enthusiasts within the company is all the proof you need.
> These guys do it for the right reasons.
You do understand that the Monaro is just a 2 door Commodore and bears no
relation to it's antique namesake don't you? It was originally just a
concept vehicle with no intentions of ever putting it into production until
it was shown to the public and the reaction proved positive.
Sure, Holden have put a lot of work into their performance stuff, and
they've done pretty well in projecting an image. On the other hand, Ford
has an equally as impressive operation with Tickford and their Falcon's, but
you obviously know little of that :)
Sorry if I seem a little fazed by your comments, but you seem to have a very
contradictory stance here. You openly criticise Ford for their "old"
technology that happens to be locally made, yet in the same breath you
praise Holden for using even more antiquated technology, but for some reason
that point is overlooked because it's sourced from overseas. Weird.
Enthusiasts within the company my arse. The styling department with too much
time on their hands more likely :)
> It's not pretty particularly, but compared to the Falcon ...
It's still ugly.
> The cars would be better if both Holden and Ford *did* base their designs
> on o/s models. Don't reinvent the wheel, balance and polish it. But don't
> ignore what's available and wheel out something worse and act surprised
> when someone points it out.
Who's pointing anything out? The majority of people who buy cars like
Falcons are happy with them. You don't like them, you don't buy one.
What's your problem?
> Well as you yourself say, leaf springs in the station wagon. But that you
> justify a suspension system designed for horse drawn carriages says much.
> Every other manufacturer on the planet is producing wonderful multi link
> rear suspensions. Ford included - but not here, no...
You can get them here too if you wish to pay for it, but not all that many
do. The point being that while a multi link suspension systems can be
wonderful in the right car, in a large station wagon loaded with cargo
there's not a lot to be gained by one.
> Actually, hardly ever stuck my nose in this group, so it wasn't me -
> perhaps some other person possessing rare insight ... ;-p
I seriously doubt it, as they were singling the praises of a 124 as well :)
> Plenty of manufacturers make cars that are more stable and predictable.
Of course they do.
Name a few that competes in the same class for the equivalent money?
Actually, one would suffice :)
> As you have repeatedly done, you've made incorrect assumptions based on
> my statement. I didn't say all Falcons had leaf springs..
I never said you did. I was just pointing out the models that do because you
seemed unaware.
Incidentally, the Commodore utility doesn't have leaf springs which makes it
less of an attractive purchase as a working vehicle compared to a leaf
spring equipped Falcon Ute, as it's carrying capacity is around 3/4 that of
the Ford.
> We approach this from different directions. You see cars as whitegoods, I
> see them with a primary purpose of being driven, and when that isn't put
> first they've got it wrong in my book. Sports car or family sedan, pay a
> little attention to detail when you design them!
For the record, you couldn't possibly have any idea how I see cars :)
> The Falcon is a Washing Machine, or Fridge - but it isn't a car. Same for
> the Vectra lest you be concerned about my impartiality again. Cars are
> exemplified by such wonderful devices as the Boxster, MX5, previous
> Integra Type R, the Ford Puma, Clio 172, MR2, Elise, VX220.
On the other hand, your outlook seems odd. You're quite happy to criticise
good, solid reliable cars that offer cheap, reliable motoring to their
owners, merely because they don't feel like a Porsche to you. Ridiculous.
It's about as smart as criticising a 747 because it has piss poor aerobatic
skills...
> Plenty of sedans too, the IS200 and Accord Type R (not here sadly..) -
> the HSV GTS does pretty well and Holden are to be commended for that.
It's too bad in all of this vacillating you haven't really mentioned
anything in the price range of a Falcon.
I assume you're aware that you generally get what you pay for...
> By a copy of 'Evo' and you'll see what I mean, and doubtless be
> dismissive of someone who expects cars to be more than an appliance.
Thanks, but I think I'll pass myself. If I happened to be discovered with
anything called "Evo" by any of my friends, I'm likely to be beaten to
death...
> If the Falcon is the measure of what the Australian car industry is
> capable of, I have no interest in saving it. The horseless carriage
> lives...
You just don't get it, do you?
It's not the measure of what the Australian car industry is capable of, but
rather what the general car buying public is willing to pay for. You don't
get leading edge hi tech for the price of a ham sandwich, and it's as simple
as that.
> I might pop back in here again one day ...!
Oh boy, I can hardly wait :)
Regards,
Noddy.
John Hudson
LS1Dan--
> >
> Yeah, they don't have pushrods or leaf springs.
There is a lot more to it than that. Jaguar technology was great but
just let down by very poor reliability issues. Only recent years they
have improved considerably.
Kieron Murphy
wrote:
>In article <3cccadea...@wa.news.telstra.net>, kie...@reiwa.com.au
>says...
><snip>
>> >I disagree with this. My impression was that the car was unreliable and
>> >poorly bolted together to go with the agricultural engineering.
>>
>> You can disagree, but its the obvious truth, Australians in general
>> are conservative by nature, the AU was to adventerous. Maybe the US
>> would have loved it?
>> Poorly bolted together/poor engineering, prior to the AU, the Falcon
>> was a good seller, your argument doesn't hold.
>
>You mean perhaps the EA?
>
>;-p
So single out one dud and ignore the rest? same goes for the equally
shoddy VN. Both models had problems, both cars bounced back. If memory
serves, the Falcon led the sales race from the 80's till the EF.
><snip>
>
>> >Let's say the *informed* public. Ford make some great cars : Puma, Focus,
>> >new Mondeo. It's not about Ford (Worldwide) ..
>>
>> Sure they do, and the Falcon technically is no better or worse than
>> its competition which is whats really being discussed here.
>
>Can't we be bothered to draw something from Ford's gene pool elsewhere.
>The Falcon is an antiquated inbred. You could say the same about the
>Commodore, and that is not without some truth. I'd just prefer we had
>cars we could be proud of instead of getting defensive about.
In the Falcons case, what is the choice, Taurus - failure due to
styling and FWD, Crown Victoria - simply wouldn't suit our market, to
old hat, Mondeo is way to small and FWD.
Something on the DEW 98 platform would have been good, but its too
expensive for a Falcon.
So that really leaves a locally developed car using limited
resources/$$$'s and we come up with a fairly competetant car (both
Falcon and Commodore) that know other manufacturere has been able to
knock off, ie Chrysler Valiant, Leyland P76, Toyota originally pitted
the widebody Camry against the FalCom, Magna, and of course the ill
fated Avalon which probably had the best chance of muscling in due to
the ugly AU.
Actually, I recall Taurus vs Fairmont Ghia comparos, and even though
the local was not as well engineered, it stacked up surprisingly well
for instance
>
>> Holden in fact were not adventerous, they evolved the current
>> Commodore styling (very succesfully) the AU was adventerous by
>> comparison and was unsuccesful.
>
>Well they got it right, sometimes this is about leading and sometimes it
>is about following. They based their design likely enough on what was
>happening with the Taurus and Scorpio with a poor attempt at 'edge'
>styling. Not very sensible, and I disagree that it was original.
Yes, Holden got it right with the conservative route, they read the
conservative Aus market correctly which couldn't be considered
adventerous at all.
Ford Aus had to go 'edge', it would have been interesting to see what
they would have come up with if left to there own free will.
As for the AU being a poor attempt at edge, thats debatable, like I
said, i'm quite sure other markets would have been more accepting, the
AU looks much better than the 'tuna fish' Taurus and i'm sure would
have done much better than it in the US.
I never said it was original, just more adventerous than the
Commodore.
>> Holden have been clever, they have succesfully pieced together a good
>> looking car + they kept the Holden image flying high in motor racing,
>> Ford oficially dropped out in 1974 and didn't return until Polites
>> took over.
>
>Your last paragraph sums up my point. Oh and Holden aren't perfect
>either, but they seem to better directed.
Yep, I will agree there. Ford Aus finally have someone at the helm who
knows what is required. Prior to this, they rested on the laurels too
much, the 80's were very good for Ford Aus and lead to complacency.
>> So now we are comparing a mass produced family sedan to a niche Sports
>> car that probably didn't even have the straight line performance of a
>> XB Falcon 500?
>> I'm quite sure the 124 led in the rust and unreliability stakes too
>> :-)
>
>The car was 11 years old when I bought it, and it still had higher
>technology than most new Australian cars. How long should technology take
>to migrate to the mass market? 2 - 5 years maybe, but not more than 20!
It took Toyota until the mid to late 80's to intro dohc/irs etc on
bread and butter models. Magna even longer. Not sure about Nissan, but
Skyline was late 80's with sohc, was it irs?
Still no excuse there, the big excuse is making a unique car for a
small market.
Actually, Holden could have introduced IRS with the VB in 78 with
hardly any development costs but the market didn't demand it, hell the
better selling XD had leaves!!!
>
>> I'll agree that leafs on wagons is stretching things in this day and
>> age though.
>>
>> The AV is rumoured to have double wishbone IRS as standard and DOHC,
>> which they actually developed back in the 80's for the EA but found it
>> unnecessary to use at the time.
>
>That would be nice actually. I honestly believe that if you capture the
>imagination of the enthusiasts, the rest will follow. Make the ordinary
>cars actually enjoyable to drive, it would be a wonderful world!
Well, maybe it could just be the car that will make your proud that
its all Australian :-)
Kieron
Kieron Murphy
wrote:
>They have more sensibly made use of externally available technology imho,
>and the attention they have given to tuning the chassis / suspension in
>their sporty versions shows they are trying. That the Monaro could have
>been reborn by enthusiasts within the company is all the proof you need.
>These guys do it for the right reasons.
hmm, now Ford have been tuning there sporty Falcon chassis too, and
are doing a better job than Holden, but then again, the IRS Falcon
chassis is a superior base to start from.
The right reasons are, will it make money for us? What the new Monaro
proves is Holden have got its marketing right and well done to them
too.
Kieron
Noddy
"John Hudson" <hu...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:2Ljz8.65626
> Yeah, they don't have pushrods or leaf springs.
No. They just have problems. *Lots* of problems :)
Regards,
Noddy.
The Red Krawler
> Jag's have a soft spot too, it's called the *engine* :)
Whats with that? Jag makes trillion dollars cars and then stick these
whopping great 15,000ci V12's under the bonnet but the car still only
manages 85rwkw....
Marco Spaccavento
"The Red Krawler" <nospam.redkr...@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote
in message news:3cd47e78$0$2524$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Such is the miracle of the British car industry :)
--
--
Marco Spaccavento
rbge...@iprimus.com.au
John Hudson
"The Red Krawler" <nospam.redkr...@nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote
in message news:3cd47e78$0$2524$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
John Hudson.
The Red Krawler
> > Whats with that? Jag makes trillion dollars cars and then stick these
> > whopping great 15,000ci V12's under the bonnet
> >but the car still only
> > manages 85rwkw....
> This sounds like BS to me. What model Jag is that?
Oh I'm sorry, I didnt take into account people who couldnt detect hyperbole
in a usenet post....
In future, I'll be sure to make it more obvious that I'm using deliberate
exageration to prove a point.