Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Ford builts its last Taurus in Chicago.

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 10:00:16 PM4/27/04
to

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Harry Face wrote:

> March 22nd, the last Ford Taurus rolled of the the assembly line here in
> Chicago. The Torrence Avenue plant will shut down to retool. Mercury
> Sable production ended in March.

Hallelujah; thus ends 18 model years of shitty vehicles millions of
Americans were foolish enough to buy. Ford was laughed out of the
European, Japanese and Australian markets with this sorry vehicle after
one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was particularly
loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a comparably-sized car of
vastly better build quality, reliability, utility and driveability.

> meanwhile the Ford 500 and Mercury Montego will begin production once
> the plant has changed over.

And as likely as not, Ford won't have learnt a thing. But then, why should
they? It's only human to make a mistake, but there are plenty of people
dumb enough to buy two and three Tauruses or Sables, so I'm certain Ford
will sell plenty of 500s and Montegos regardless of how ineffably average
they are.

DS

Bill 2

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 10:40:57 PM4/27/04
to

"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...

>
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Harry Face wrote:
>
> > March 22nd, the last Ford Taurus rolled of the the assembly line here in
> > Chicago. The Torrence Avenue plant will shut down to retool. Mercury
> > Sable production ended in March.
>
> Hallelujah; thus ends 18 model years of shitty vehicles millions of
> Americans were foolish enough to buy. Ford was laughed out of the
> European, Japanese and Australian markets with this sorry vehicle after
> one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was particularly
> loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a comparably-sized car of
> vastly better build quality, reliability, utility and drivability.

We're on our second Taurus and don't have any complaints. Once they got the
AXOD under control, the Taurus wasn't so bad with a 3.0 engine. It's not
like anyone else has ever continuously continued to manufacture a shitty
transmission, that made its way into almost the entire
lineup*cough*A604*cough*, not to mention the number of shitty engines that
have made their way into Chrysler cars (Mitsubishi or otherwise).

> > meanwhile the Ford 500 and Mercury Montego will begin production once
> > the plant has changed over.
>
> And as likely as not, Ford won't have learnt a thing. But then, why should
> they? It's only human to make a mistake, but there are plenty of people
> dumb enough to buy two and three Tauruses or Sables, so I'm certain Ford
> will sell plenty of 500s and Montegos regardless of how ineffably average
> they are.

I heard rumors that the 500 will be based on the Mazda 6 platform. Since
that means Japanese that must mean it's thousands of times better right?
Meanwhile I think the Mercury is going to be a separate car from the 500,
possibly based loosely on the current Taurus / Sable.


Brent P

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 10:46:09 PM4/27/04
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was particularly
> loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a comparably-sized car of
> vastly better build quality, reliability, utility and driveability.

Those dumb asses actually tried to sell tauri next to a real car like
the falcon?


>> meanwhile the Ford 500 and Mercury Montego will begin production once
>> the plant has changed over.

> And as likely as not, Ford won't have learnt a thing. But then, why should
> they? It's only human to make a mistake, but there are plenty of people
> dumb enough to buy two and three Tauruses or Sables, so I'm certain Ford
> will sell plenty of 500s and Montegos regardless of how ineffably average
> they are.

I'd rather they just put falcons in shipping creates. So what if the
driver sits on the wrong side for north america? I can live with that
easier than the cheapening that's done on north america only models.


Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 11:24:14 PM4/27/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:

> > one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was
> > particularly loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a
> > comparably-sized car of vastly better build quality, reliability,
> > utility and driveability.
>
> Those dumb asses actually tried to sell tauri next to a real car like
> the falcon?

Believe it or not! They went to all the effort and expense of designing
real lights and signals, real seatbelts, sideview mirrors that don't tear
a chunk out of a pedestrian's side before breaking off, and all the rest
of the stuff cars have to have outside North America, introduced it with
much fanfare in Australia, and, well, the rest is a sick punchline to a
sick joke. Ironically, the modifications made to the car to make it
compliant with rest-of-world safety regs made it a somewhat nicer-looking
car, not nearly so fish-mouthed with the front signals mounted in the
bumper at the extreme outboard edges of the car.

DS

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 27, 2004, 11:29:10 PM4/27/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Bill 2 wrote:

> > Hallelujah; thus ends 18 model years of shitty vehicles millions of
> > Americans were foolish enough to buy. Ford was laughed out of the
> > European, Japanese and Australian markets with this sorry vehicle
> > after one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was
> > particularly loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a
> > comparably-sized car of vastly better build quality, reliability,
> > utility and drivability.

> We're on our second Taurus and don't have any complaints.


Ford counts on people like you.

> Once they got the
> AXOD under control

Pfft. They still haven't got the AXOD under control.

> like anyone else has ever continuously continued to manufacture a shitty
> transmission, that made its way into almost the entire
> lineup*cough*A604*cough*

When the A604 breaks, it stops working. When the AXOD breaks, it
essentially burns down -- not a damn thing reusable inside the housing,
and sometimes the housing has to go in the trash, too.

> I heard rumors that the 500 will be based on the Mazda 6 platform. Since
> that means Japanese that must mean it's thousands of times better right?

You're asking me? I wouldn't know. Every time I think it might be a good
idea to look at getting a Japanese-designed car, my investigations and
test drives tell me I haven't really missed anything by not owning one.

DS

Bob Urz

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 12:31:33 AM4/28/04
to

Tell us how you really feel about a taurus Dan.
Personally, i think your full of it.

Is the taurus the best car of all time? Far from it.
But as a utilitarian vehicle, it serves it purpose.

Has it had problems? yes. Certain years of early AXODE and
3.8 head gaskets come to mind. But they all weren't bad.


I have owned 4. Not a single motor failure, not a single trannie
failure. They get around good in the snow. They haul the family
around. Will a 3.0 win any races? No, but who cares. Mileage and
ride are average. How many have you owned Dan? Any personal experience
with more than one taurus?

My wife crashed two of them. survived both wrecks in good shape.
The cars gave there lives, but my wife did not have to.
Tell me a taurus is not safe dan.

Do i have to fix my older taurus? You BET! but what old higher mileage
car do you NOT have to fix? That's the price you pay for no car
payments. And for the most part the parts are reasonable and i can
do most all the work myself. I will just wait until my wife crashes
the next one and buy another newer one.

Don't know were you got the bit that all trannie failures are melt
downs. They had problems with the forward clutch piston. This certainly
did not cause the trannie to be JUNK. But it did have to be pulled to
have it fixed. For the most part, pulling a AX4XX or a 604 will probably
cost you about the same. My buddies caravan had a rebuilt 604.
None of my taurus had trannie problems. So you could say he is one
up on me. Any trannie can blow a planetary gear and be junk.

Ford built some boners, and its just not taurus models.
I suppose you could go to a mid size GM and get bit by the
intake manifold leaking dexcool and breaking you cam shaft
in half on the 3.1/3.4 if the ford is that bad. Or a bad
head gasket on a 2.2 (like my S10 had before i bought it)

I will be waiting for the 500. Will it turn out to be a good
car? Who knows.

Its strange, if the Australian cars are so good, why have none of them
that have been imported into the US been hot sellers? There has not
been a falcon in the US since 1965/6 or so. I got to admit the GTO
looks nice. Just tell me where there all at. I have not seen one
on the street yet. GM must be "holden out".

Bob

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 1:04:49 AM4/28/04
to
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Bob Urz wrote:

> Any personal experience with more than one taurus?

Unfortunately, yes. I used to get stuck with nice, new, low-mielage
Taurus/Sables all the time when renting cars. They all had noisy fuel
pumps and that bizarre "Glub! GlubGlub! Glub!" sound upon startup, their
headlamps all sucked, their A/Cs all smelled like dead fish, and they were
all average-to-poor in most ergonomic and driveability respects.

> Don't know were you got the bit that all trannie failures are melt
> downs.

From several accomplished-to-talented trans techs over the years.

> They had problems with the forward clutch piston.

Amongst many other things...


> My wife crashed two of them [...] the cars gave their life but she did
> not

Here's a thought for you to chew on: Cars with good enough suspension,
steering and brake systems that the crash doesn't happen in the first
place.

> Ford built some boners, and its just not taurus models.

Very true. Ford has also forgotten how to build intake manifolds, has
never been able to make an alternator or a starter worth a damn, put ten
model years' worth of spontaneously-combusting ignition switches in
virtually all their vehicles (Whoopsie!), had an inch-thick stack of
recalls for recent Focus and Cougar models (wheels falling off, jolly
stuff like that), emissions systems that don't meet Federal
standards,radiator fans flying apart and impaling nearby people,
transmissions jumping out of park, alternator connectors catching fire,
modular cylinder heads leaking water into combustion chambers...you're
right, the list just goes on and on.

> I suppose you could go to a mid size GM and get bit by the intake
> manifold leaking dexcool and breaking you cam shaft in half on the
> 3.1/3.4 if the ford is that bad. Or a bad head gasket on a 2.2 (like my
> S10 had before i bought it)

I don't recall claiming GM's cars were grand, great or groovy.

> Its strange, if the Australian cars are so good, why have none of them
> that have been imported into the US been hot seller

'cause the good ones are not brought to the US. Their existence in this
market would open North America's consumers' eyes to how shitty the
domestic offerings are.

DS

athol

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 4:01:27 AM4/28/04
to

There are a few small issues, such as the fact that the [GM] Holden
Commodore 2-door (insultingly called a Monaro in AUS after a late
'60s/early '70s model, and insultingly called a Pontiac GTO in the
US market) required the fuel tank to be relocated and an ugly front
bumper and atrocious quality lights fitted to comply with US rules.

The main reason why Ford and GM aren't selling the AUS made *RWD*
Falcon and Commodore is that the companies are US-based, and the
unions have leant on the companies not to import these vehicles,
with the threat that the unions would shut down all US production...

IIRC, GM had to negotiate a _lot_ to be allowed to import a small
number of GTOs to the US - the union were still unhappy.

Otherwise, you'd get essentially the Saudi Arabian spec Chevrolet
sedans, the Chev El Camino (current Commodore ute), and quite
possibly the new crewman dual-cab ute and a lot more GTOs. You'd
also get the Falcon sedan and ute. Not sure about wagons - they
don't seem particularly interested in selling them into the US
market, even though they have apparently sold the Falcon wagon but
not the sedans in the UK.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

athol

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 4:08:56 AM4/28/04
to
In aus.cars Daniel J. Stern <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:

>> Those dumb asses actually tried to sell tauri next to a real car like
>> the falcon?

> Believe it or not! They went to all the effort and expense of designing
> real lights and signals, real seatbelts, sideview mirrors that don't tear
> a chunk out of a pedestrian's side before breaking off, and all the rest
> of the stuff cars have to have outside North America, introduced it with
> much fanfare in Australia,

Yep. The road tests at the time pretty much said that it was overpriced
crap. That was ignoring the el cheapo FWD drivetrain and just comparing
the T'arse Ghia to a Fairmont Ghia (luxury variant of Falcon) as family
cars...

> and, well, the rest is a sick punchline to a
> sick joke. Ironically, the modifications made to the car to make it
> compliant with rest-of-world safety regs made it a somewhat nicer-looking
> car, not nearly so fish-mouthed with the front signals mounted in the
> bumper at the extreme outboard edges of the car.

Still a seriously ugly car. The AU Falcon and current Mitsu Magna have
tried hard to be as ugly, but have generally only succeeded in small
areas of the vehicle instead of the whole vehicle. :-)

Nate Nagel

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:10:46 AM4/28/04
to
Daniel J. Stern wrote:

You're so right. I used to date a girl whose grandfather had worked for
Ford. Her mother had *three* Tauri in a row, despite the fact that each
was a bigger piece of shite than the last. I guess that couple hundred
bucks discount made up for the fact that it was in the shop all the time.

It was odd, she bitched and moaned about how my old beater '84 VW was
"loud," "small" and didn't have A/C but guess who was always running her
to the dealership. Same thing with the '67 Valiant I found for her
daughter.

I'd like to say that she finally broke the cycle but sadly I never found
out, because her daughter and I stopped dating some five years ago...
The *really* sad thing is that when she went to trade in Taurus #2 I
told her she ought to test drive a Contour as it was a much nicer car
even though it was smaller, and when she mentioned it to the salesman at
the dealership, and she was firmly guided away from the Contour... back
into another Taurus...

nate

--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

Paul

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 7:57:55 AM4/28/04
to

"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...

> Hallelujah; thus ends 18 model years of shitty vehicles millions of
> Americans were foolish enough to buy. Ford was laughed out of the
> European, Japanese and Australian markets with this sorry vehicle after
> one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was particularly
> loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a comparably-sized car of
> vastly better build quality, reliability, utility and driveability.

If they were so shitty, then please explain how I got 250 000 miles out of my first
one, 145 000 miles out of the second one (and that one was the lemon) and my current
one has 106 000 miles and still going strong.

>
> > meanwhile the Ford 500 and Mercury Montego will begin production once
> > the plant has changed over.

Another great car line killed in favor of an over sized piece of crap suv in a car's
clothing and their piece of crap owners. :(

Rest In Peace Camaro, Firebird, Taurus, Sable, Caprice Classic

> And as likely as not, Ford won't have learnt a thing. But then, why should
> they? It's only human to make a mistake, but there are plenty of people
> dumb enough to buy two and three Tauruses or Sables, so I'm certain Ford
> will sell plenty of 500s and Montegos regardless of how ineffably average
> they are.

Not to me they won't. I want a car and not an overblown car on steroids POS suv
disguised as a car.

--
Paul

If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.


The Interceptor

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 8:21:47 AM4/28/04
to

> Its strange, if the Australian cars are so good, why have none of them
> that have been imported into the US been hot sellers? There has not
> been a falcon in the US since 1965/6 or so. I got to admit the GTO
> looks nice. Just tell me where there all at. I have not seen one
> on the street yet. GM must be "holden out".
>
> Bob

The fact that you guys don't import Aussie Fords reflects more on your awful
taste than anything else. The reason we stopping importing the Mustang was
because our local hot Falcons are a much better deal (better quality, better
price, better handling, faster etc). The new Mustang has a 3 link rear end
with a live axle - amazing.

As for the Taurus - if you like a front wheel drive cockroach, fine, the
Taurus might be your thing.

Brett


Brent P

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:24:58 AM4/28/04
to
In article <c6nocm$e057v$1...@ID-215292.news.uni-berlin.de>, athol wrote:

> The main reason why Ford and GM aren't selling the AUS made *RWD*
> Falcon and Commodore is that the companies are US-based, and the
> unions have leant on the companies not to import these vehicles,
> with the threat that the unions would shut down all US production...

There is no reason that Ford and GM could not design and build similiar
cars in the USA. (cept maybe for CAFE) Importation of cars they design and
build overseas isn't really needed. But it is better than offering what
they do.


Brent P

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:29:36 AM4/28/04
to
In article <408f8...@newsfeed.slurp.net>, Nate Nagel wrote:

> The *really* sad thing is that when she went to trade in Taurus #2 I
> told her she ought to test drive a Contour as it was a much nicer car
> even though it was smaller, and when she mentioned it to the salesman at
> the dealership, and she was firmly guided away from the Contour... back
> into another Taurus...

Yep. The contour like almost all such cars that get to USA seem to be
sabotoged from within. The entire sales force seems out to make sure they
fail. I dunno why. Probably the same reasons that corporate bean counters
make sure attempts from the domestic engineering groups fail as well. (ie
Fiero)


Brent P

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:37:31 AM4/28/04
to
In article <VSMjc.34514$oN1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Paul wrote:

> If they were so shitty, then please explain how I got 250 000 miles out of my first
> one,

Every so often all the tolerances do line up. But it still doesn't make
the taurus as good as the cars ford makes for the rest of the world.

> 145 000 miles out of the second one (and that one was the lemon)

145,000 isn't anything these days.

> and my current one has 106 000 miles and still going strong.

I would hope so at 106k.

No matter how long a particular taurus survives, it's still not up to the
standards of what even Ford makes for the rest of the world. Once exposed
to Ford's and GM's rest-of-the-world cars it becomes clear that they simply
have decided to feed the US market with crap.

BenD...@mailcity.com

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:42:36 AM4/28/04
to
The 2005 Ford 500, the new Mercury Montego and the 2006 Lincoln
Zephyr will be built at Chicago on a version of a Ford chassis
first used by Volvo. They will be available with a twin can V6
and offered in AWD and FWD. The AWD has a CVT tranny and the FWD
will come with a 6 speed automatic or the CVT. Fords 2005
crossover SUV and the 2006 Lincoln Aviator are the vehicles that
will be built on a version of the FORD chassis, first used on the
Mazda. Although the last Taurus was built at Chicago that is not
the end of the Taurus, it will still be built at Atlanta for
fleets for another year of two. The Sable is gone however. As
to the Taurus, you are entitled to you opinion but hardly junk
vehicle some have described, based on what we have seen of that
vehicle over nearly 20 years it was sold. I have seen thousands
in corporate fleet service run up as high as 300K


mike hunt

Bill 2 wrote:
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Harry Face wrote:
> >
> > > March 22nd, the last Ford Taurus rolled of the the assembly line here in
> > > Chicago. The Torrence Avenue plant will shut down to retool. Mercury
> > > Sable production ended in March.
> >

>

> We're on our second Taurus and don't have any complaints.
>

Brent P

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:45:50 AM4/28/04
to
In article <10831538...@ruby.westnet.net.au>, The Interceptor wrote:

> The fact that you guys don't import Aussie Fords reflects more on your awful
> taste than anything else. The reason we stopping importing the Mustang was
> because our local hot Falcons are a much better deal (better quality, better
> price, better handling, faster etc). The new Mustang has a 3 link rear end
> with a live axle - amazing.

Marketing. There is a segment of mustang buyers that want a live axle.
Mostly those interested in drag racing. Ford USA wants people to pay
through the nose for anything approching rest-of-the-world standards.
So IRS is only on the cobra. Ford could have simply made IRS or the
live axle a line item option for all mustangs, the just didn't because
the marketeers couldn't do their 'branding' and other BS that they
like to babble about.

The cobra isn't that special of a car IMO, it's just a better mustang.
But Ford like with everything else just creates rarity and makes it
a pain to get ahold of one. These marketing practices have totally
turned me off towards ford. I'll sooner do all the mods I need to get
what I want out of my existing mustang since the amount of effort to
bid against other people for cobra at above-sticker price without even
getting a test drive could simply be redirected at turning a wrench.

Dave

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:47:04 AM4/28/04
to

Brent P wrote:

>
>
> Yep. The contour like almost all such cars that get to USA seem to be
> sabotoged from within. The entire sales force seems out to make sure they
> fail. I dunno why. Probably the same reasons that corporate bean counters
> make sure attempts from the domestic engineering groups fail as well. (ie
> Fiero)
>
>

The fault with the Contour (in the USA) was that it had less usable
space than the Escort yet cost more. In the states the consumer thinks
smaller is less expensive.

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:37:39 AM4/28/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Paul wrote:

> If they were so shitty, then please explain how I got 250 000 miles out
> of my first one

The explanation is the same as for the existence of a particular white '86
Yugo GV that was still in daily service in Denver the last time I saw it
in 2001. Just about any machine can be kept running, no matter how poorly
designed or shoddily built, with sufficient money and effort.

DS

Backyard Mechanic

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:54:05 AM4/28/04
to
Brent P opined in news:kdPjc.5337$lz5.781638@attbi_s53:

> Probably the same reasons that corporate bean counters
> make sure attempts from the domestic engineering groups fail as well. (ie
> Fiero)
>
>

Fiero "sabotaged" by bean counters???... you're kidding, right?

Take my own measley 50 mile commute and first hand view of 2 burning on side
of the interstate.

And I've ridden in them.. definitely a "niche" car, not in a favorable
position relative to Miata.

BenD...@mailcity.com

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:18:24 AM4/28/04
to
You mean those great well built cars like the Mercury Capri
convertible that Ford imported? LOL


mike hunt

Brandon Sommerville

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:21:03 AM4/28/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:18:24 -0400, BenD...@mailcity.com wrote:

>You mean those great well built cars like the Mercury Capri
>convertible that Ford imported? LOL

Now how about that Australian GTO that Chevy was smart enough to get.
Anything comparable on American roads?
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg.

Brandon Sommerville

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:21:03 AM4/28/04
to

Not only that, but the planets may have aligned when that particular
car was built, giving you reliability that you wouldn't have gotten
from the majority of those cars.

fbloogyudsr

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 1:26:32 PM4/28/04
to
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote

Just goes to show that statistics actually works: Paul got one from the
slim top part of the quality bell curve.

Floyd

D Walford

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 1:39:21 PM4/28/04
to
Bob Urz wrote:
>

> Its strange, if the Australian cars are so good, why have none of them
> that have been imported into the US been hot sellers? There has not
> been a falcon in the US since 1965/6 or so. I got to admit the GTO
> looks nice. Just tell me where there all at. I have not seen one
> on the street yet. GM must be "holden out".
>

Ford Australia couldn't give away the Taurus mainly because most people
here consider it to be ugly as sin.
The few that were sold here were very unreliable and not up to local
standards.
I don't really know why Australian cars haven't been sold in the USA but
I guess its got a lot to do with import regulations and/or resistance
from US car manufacturing unions.

Daryl

Nate Nagel

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 6:42:07 PM4/28/04
to
Yeah, that's an Australian car all right.

nate

BenD...@mailcity.com wrote:

Ennui Society

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 9:11:06 PM4/28/04
to
Does that have to do with Australian disdain for cottage industry
approach of converting Mustangs to right-hand drive? Those Mustangs
destined for Australia were built with left-hand drive and right-hand
drive interior (!). Once they alighted in Australia, they were spirited
away to Tickford for the conversion work.

Why can't Ford USA design and build Mustangs to be either left- or
right-hand drive on single assembly line in the first place? The cost is
neglible (according to the studies included in Paul Kinrad's excellent
'Rule of the Road'). Ford Brasil builds both left- and right-hand drive
F250 and F350 with latter ones exporting to Australia.

On a side note, the conversion for C5 Chevrolet Corvette is quoted about
A$27.500,- (roughly USD19.600,-) according to the Corvette specialist in
Australia.

According to Ford Mustang Owners Club in Australia, the insane procedure
is as following:

---US Modifications---
Left hand drive Mustangs arrive in Australia with some minor modifications.

The vehicles’ tail lamps and head lamps are Japanese specification,
which are closer to meeting Australian design rules with the head lamp
beam oriented to right hand drive.

The rear tail lamps are further modified in Australia to meet design
rules, while the head lamps are supplemented by a set of high beam lamps.

This process involves the first change to the Mustang’s sheet metal.

The front bumper cover is removed and cut to allow the new lamps to be
fitted, while the steel beam is also removed and the lamps attached to
it by brackets. Two new bezels are fitted over the lamps.

New side indicator lamps are also fitted in Australia.

Another modification carried out in the States involves the seats, with
the electric driver’s seat installed on the right hand side on the line
in Detroit.

Other US modifications include the installment of an Australian
ADR-compliant windscreen, seatbelts and a Japanese-spec exhaust to meet
local noise requirements.

---Australian Modifications---
The `localising’ process begins with the removal of the engine, gearbox
and tailshaft.

Inside the car, the seats, instrument panel, carpet and sound deadening
material are removed to allow for the necessary modifications to the
firewall.

CAD-generated templates are used to ensure accuracy in the gaps cut in
the firewall for the pedals and steering column.

The gaps in the left hand side of the firewall are covered by panels
which are bolted and riveted. A structural adhesive and bonding material
is also applied to reinforce the structural integrity of the panel.

The firewall was extensively tested using CAD tools prior to the final
physical crash testing.

---The Domino Effect---
Repositioning of the steering column and pedals created what could only
be called `a domino effect' under the bonnet of the Mustang.

The air-conditioning and heating system has to be moved to the left hand
side of the car, which requires a major reworking of the system by a
third party supplier in Australia.

Under the bonnet, hoses and wiring that serve the air-conditioning
system are re-routed to accommodate its new position.

The instrument panel also needs to be disassembled, with the instrument
cluster, air ducts, controls and air registers all re-positioned. The
passenger’s airbag also is repositioned and tested.

Other cabin items that require modification include the power window
switches and their bezels, the power side mirror controls and the
mirrors themselves, the sunvisors (for ADR purposes) and the seatbelt
and child restraint anchors.

Once installed on the prototypes, the anchors were subjected to
stringent safety testing.

The instrument panel fascia was designed by Tickford to be a mirror
image of the US standard instrument panel.

"The fact that we designed the IP ourselves allowed us the luxury of
being able to finesse the vehicle more as we assembled it. We also added
more sound deadening material," said Mr Flint.

The carpet requires minor modifications, while all three pedals are
Australian designs.

"We’ve recognised that often one of the areas that suffers in a
conversion is driver comfort, so we have designed the pedals
specifically for this car," he said.

The central gearbox tunnel is also modified to allow for a footrest for
the driver.

"The left footwell in the US Mustang is larger than the right to improve
driver comfort, so we have had to modify the right hand side," he said.

The engine and gearbox in the US-spec Mustang are offset slightly to the
right to accommodate the bigger driver footwell, which means more
modifications for Tickford.

In order to move the engine and gearbox to the right, the vehicle’s
cross member is modified, with brackets repositioned to retain necessary
clearances in the engine bay.

The steering column itself is untouched, but a new steering rack is
sourced from Germany and modified in Australia.

The sump also requires modifications to allow for sufficient clearance
from the new steering rack, while the master cylinder and booster are
moved and hydraulic lines are re-routed.

Once the engine is installed, the vehicle’s driveline is re-balanced to
take into account the re-positioning of the engine and gearbox. A wheel
alignment is also carried out.

The car is quality tested by Tickford engineers at each step of the
modification process, before moving to the Broadmeadows Assembly Plant
for a final squeak and rattle test.

A drive test and an "eye of the customer" quality review is then
conducted before the vehicle is signed off and delivered to the customer.

Oliver

dizzy

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 9:59:02 PM4/28/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:10:46 -0400, Nate Nagel
<njn...@toadliquor.net> wrote:

>You're so right. I used to date a girl whose grandfather had worked for
>Ford. Her mother had *three* Tauri in a row, despite the fact that each
>was a bigger piece of shite than the last. I guess that couple hundred
>bucks discount made up for the fact that it was in the shop all the time.

But, but, but, it's okay to buy from them again, because maybe they've
finally gotten their act together. After 100 years in the car
business. Duuhhh....

dizzy

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:27:39 PM4/28/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:37:31 GMT, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:

>No matter how long a particular taurus survives, it's still not up to the
>standards of what even Ford makes for the rest of the world. Once exposed
>to Ford's and GM's rest-of-the-world cars it becomes clear that they simply
>have decided to feed the US market with crap.

How does one learn of these other cars?

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 10:57:43 PM4/28/04
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, dizzy wrote:

> >No matter how long a particular taurus survives, it's still not up to
> >the standards of what even Ford makes for the rest of the world. Once
> >exposed to Ford's and GM's rest-of-the-world cars it becomes clear that
> >they simply have decided to feed the US market with crap.
>
> How does one learn of these other cars?

Well, y'know, one *drives* them. It's easier if you first go to places
where they're available.

DS

Brent P

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:30:47 PM4/28/04
to
In article <1090lem...@corp.supernews.com>, Ennui Society wrote:
> Does that have to do with Australian disdain for cottage industry
> approach of converting Mustangs to right-hand drive? Those Mustangs
> destined for Australia were built with left-hand drive and right-hand
> drive interior (!). Once they alighted in Australia, they were spirited
> away to Tickford for the conversion work.

Mustangs are a special case and always will be. All of ford's cheap
short cuts can be corrected on a mustang. I've corrected the ones that
annoyed me the most on mine. Brakes, struts, shifter. I will do more
eventually, probably the driver's seat since that's what is annoying
me the most right now. Anyway the mustang and those who love it can
generally overcome what ford does to it. The big exception is the mustang
ii which became the donor car for street rod front suspensions...

> Why can't Ford USA design and build Mustangs to be either left- or
> right-hand drive on single assembly line in the first place? The cost is
> neglible (according to the studies included in Paul Kinrad's excellent
> 'Rule of the Road'). Ford Brasil builds both left- and right-hand drive
> F250 and F350 with latter ones exporting to Australia.

Because they don't want to. It's about marketing. There was no reason
they couldn't make the better equiped mavericks in the USA either, they
didn't because then the maverick would have been a better pony car
than the mustang ii. Since mexico and brazil didn't get mustang ii's
they got much better options for performance mavericks.

> The rear tail lamps are further modified in Australia to meet design
> rules, while the head lamps are supplemented by a set of high beam lamps.

Because mustang headlamps are crap. I still need to get relays, just in
denial that I can't do better than that.

> The front bumper cover is removed and cut to allow the new lamps to be
> fitted, while the steel beam is also removed and the lamps attached to
> it by brackets. Two new bezels are fitted over the lamps.

Yep. The lamps have to be secured to something solid and stable. At least
this detail shows they know what they are doing.



> New side indicator lamps are also fitted in Australia.

Of course, there are no repeaters on mustangs. I'd like to find a
repeater that I could mount without drilling the fender. I would remove
the GT badges and thread the wires through the existing holes.

> Another modification carried out in the States involves the seats, with

> the electric driver?s seat installed on the right hand side on the line
> in Detroit.

That's got to make for some odd switchgear location, unless it's typical
for RHD cars to have seat adjustment switches on the console side. Plus
there isn't as much room on that side of the mustang because of the tunnel
design.

<snip stuff that makes perfect sense>

> The central gearbox tunnel is also modified to allow for a footrest for
> the driver.
> "The left footwell in the US Mustang is larger than the right to improve
> driver comfort, so we have had to modify the right hand side," he said.

<snip other tunnel stuff>

Ahh... I knew they would have to do something about that ;)

<snip more of the extensive list>

Then they get to modify it to make it perform better I suppose.

I really wish ford would make a rest-of-the-world spec mustang as a
world car. What overseas buyers are willing to do says the market is
there. But the marketeers aren't car guys so they wouldn't understand.

Brent P

unread,
Apr 28, 2004, 11:33:59 PM4/28/04
to

Travel. websites. this and other newsgroups. Talking to car guys who
come to the USA from other places. That sort of thing. ;)

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 12:25:17 AM4/29/04
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:

> Because mustang headlamps are crap. I still need to get relays, just in
> denial that I can't do better than that.

You can, you just can't buy something off the shelf and slap it in -- it
takes more work than that.

DS

Brent P

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 1:02:19 AM4/29/04
to

And doesn't make the car look like shit? I'm not sending
money overseas hoping that someone sends me the hyundai lamps that fit
horribly and require me to cut up the radiator support sheetmetal to
install. Neither am I going to do a massive amount of body work to
graft in 1986 and earlier quads. On a '97 this would take some serious
bodyworking skills.

Now I suppose I could sit down and design some assemblies to hold
a set of quad lights that look merely disjointed with the car's styling.
A couple thousand dollars of custom machine shop made parts later I'd
have something. But I'll put two grand into the suspension first.

So, what other options are there?

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 1:36:10 AM4/29/04
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:

> >> Because mustang headlamps are crap. I still need to get relays, just in
> >> denial that I can't do better than that.
> >
> > You can, you just can't buy something off the shelf and slap it in -- it
> > takes more work than that.
>
> And doesn't make the car look like shit?

And doesn't make the car look like shit. I donno what that joker was
smoking when he suggested Hyundai cramming in Hyundai lamps.

> Now I suppose I could sit down and design some assemblies to hold
> a set of quad lights that look merely disjointed with the car's styling.

You could, but it's much simpler and cleaner to take advantage of the
clear (non-optical) lenses, remove the reflectors from behind them and
install a set of four Hella modular projector units, either the DOT H9
units or the E-code H7s. I'm betting you can make a bracket that bolts to
a flat surface (radiator support) and has a center hole surrounded by four
bolt holes on a 4 5/8" square pattern...right?

DS

Reece Talley

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 2:09:57 AM4/29/04
to
I have owned a Taurus SE (95) and a Sable (98) Neither gave me any problem
at all. My son drove the SE into a tree and walked away. The Sable went
78,000 without a problem. I made several trips from LA to Montana and never
got less than 28 mpg, sometimes I even got 31 mpg. I didn't baby it, had the
AC on and ran between 70 and 80 mph through the summer heat. I also drove it
up there twice in the winter. The car performed perfectly. I would buy
another if the deal was right. It was a cookie cutter car. Lots of them
made, millions of miles driven. I bought mine used and thus avoided the
steep depreciation. Say what you will, but my actual experience with two of
them leads me to conclude that they were a good car at a moderate price and
an excellent deal if purchased used with low miles on the clock.

--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
NAR #69594
NRA #133073736
"Bob Urz" <so...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:408f3...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:


> > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Bill 2 wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Hallelujah; thus ends 18 model years of shitty vehicles millions of
> >>>Americans were foolish enough to buy. Ford was laughed out of the
> >>>European, Japanese and Australian markets with this sorry vehicle
> >>>after one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was
> >>>particularly loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a
> >>>comparably-sized car of vastly better build quality, reliability,

> >>>utility and drivability.


> >
> >
> >>We're on our second Taurus and don't have any complaints.
> >
> >
> >

> > Ford counts on people like you.
> >
> >
> >>Once they got the
> >>AXOD under control
> >
> >
> > Pfft. They still haven't got the AXOD under control.
> >
> >
> >>like anyone else has ever continuously continued to manufacture a shitty
> >>transmission, that made its way into almost the entire
> >>lineup*cough*A604*cough*
> >
> >
> > When the A604 breaks, it stops working. When the AXOD breaks, it
> > essentially burns down -- not a damn thing reusable inside the housing,
> > and sometimes the housing has to go in the trash, too.


> >
> >
> >>I heard rumors that the 500 will be based on the Mazda 6 platform. Since
> >>that means Japanese that must mean it's thousands of times better right?
> >
> >

> > You're asking me? I wouldn't know. Every time I think it might be a good
> > idea to look at getting a Japanese-designed car, my investigations and
> > test drives tell me I haven't really missed anything by not owning one.
> >
> > DS
>
> Tell us how you really feel about a taurus Dan.
> Personally, i think your full of it.
>
> Is the taurus the best car of all time? Far from it.
> But as a utilitarian vehicle, it serves it purpose.
>
> Has it had problems? yes. Certain years of early AXODE and
> 3.8 head gaskets come to mind. But they all weren't bad.
>
>
> I have owned 4. Not a single motor failure, not a single trannie
> failure. They get around good in the snow. They haul the family
> around. Will a 3.0 win any races? No, but who cares. Mileage and
> ride are average. How many have you owned Dan? Any personal experience
> with more than one taurus?
>
> My wife crashed two of them. survived both wrecks in good shape.
> The cars gave there lives, but my wife did not have to.
> Tell me a taurus is not safe dan.
>
> Do i have to fix my older taurus? You BET! but what old higher mileage
> car do you NOT have to fix? That's the price you pay for no car
> payments. And for the most part the parts are reasonable and i can
> do most all the work myself. I will just wait until my wife crashes
> the next one and buy another newer one.
>
> Don't know were you got the bit that all trannie failures are melt
> downs. They had problems with the forward clutch piston. This certainly
> did not cause the trannie to be JUNK. But it did have to be pulled to
> have it fixed. For the most part, pulling a AX4XX or a 604 will probably
> cost you about the same. My buddies caravan had a rebuilt 604.
> None of my taurus had trannie problems. So you could say he is one
> up on me. Any trannie can blow a planetary gear and be junk.
>
> Ford built some boners, and its just not taurus models.
> I suppose you could go to a mid size GM and get bit by the
> intake manifold leaking dexcool and breaking you cam shaft
> in half on the 3.1/3.4 if the ford is that bad. Or a bad
> head gasket on a 2.2 (like my S10 had before i bought it)
>
> I will be waiting for the 500. Will it turn out to be a good
> car? Who knows.


>
> Its strange, if the Australian cars are so good, why have none of them
> that have been imported into the US been hot sellers? There has not
> been a falcon in the US since 1965/6 or so. I got to admit the GTO
> looks nice. Just tell me where there all at. I have not seen one
> on the street yet. GM must be "holden out".
>
> Bob
>
>
>

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


Damaeus

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 3:17:51 AM4/29/04
to
In news:alt.autos.ford, "Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> posted on
Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:00:16 -0400:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Harry Face wrote:
>
> > March 22nd, the last Ford Taurus rolled of the the assembly line here in
> > Chicago. The Torrence Avenue plant will shut down to retool. Mercury
> > Sable production ended in March.

Are you serious? No more Sable? Damn, I was looking forward to buying a
new Sable. I got a used '98 model financed for two years. I have one
more year to pay on it. I was planning on saving $500 a month for a year
and putting a $6,000 down payment on a new 2006 Sable. I guess I'll have
to find a new favorite car.

I had a 1987 Taurus I had no complaints about and this '98 Sable I can't
complain about. Both were great cars. I'm sad to hear they're being
discontinued. :-(

Damaeus

Jinxter

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 6:43:16 AM4/29/04
to
You're right... That old G-reg ford I owned about 5 years ago was awesome!
The little 1.8 had it going on, despite the fact that the body was rusted
away... Or maybe all the Chrysler vehicles in the UK - modded for the wrong
side of the road - are somehow better than the stuff in the US. Or maybe
Australia is different, in they get ALL the better-built US cars while the
rest of the world suffers with the lemons?

"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LkPjc.4566$Rd4.529442@attbi_s51...

Marco

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 7:24:43 AM4/29/04
to

"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_8Pjc.5276$RE1.704516@attbi_s54...
>
> There is no reason that Ford and GM could not design and build similiar
> cars in the USA. (cept maybe for CAFE) Importation of cars they design and
> build overseas isn't really needed. But it is better than offering what
> they do.

Really, there's no reason for that matter why Ford and GM couldn't tool up
and build versions of the Falcon and Commodore in the US. In GM's case,
apparently, cars based on the 2006 Commodore will be built there.


--
Marco Spaccavento
rbge...@iprimus.com.au


Bill 2

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 7:33:56 AM4/29/04
to

"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> > My wife crashed two of them [...] the cars gave their life but she did
> > not
>
> Here's a thought for you to chew on: Cars with good enough suspension,
> steering and brake systems that the crash doesn't happen in the first
> place.

Unlikely. A car is only as good as the nut behind the wheel. The car itself
can only do so much. We don't know what happened in these collisions, but
there's a good chance if the drivers did something different it could be
avoided, not something a different car would necessarily do. The problem is
they let just anybody drive.


Mike...@lycos.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 10:39:32 AM4/29/04
to
The Taurus was a 'good deal' purchased new, as well. The total
drive home price, the real price of any vehicle, of a new Taurus
was 5 or 6 thousand dollars LESS, on average, than a comparably
equipped V6 Camry or V6 Accord in 2004. In two years the average
retail price of a used Taurus only $4,000 less than the others to
boot, leasing to an even lower cost
v the others.


mike hunt

BigJo...@mailcity.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 11:00:42 AM4/29/04
to
If you liked the Sable then you will LOVE its replacement. The
2005 Montego is available for order from you local
Lincoln/Mercury dealer as we speak. Pricing has not been
released but my sources tell me pricing will be similar to 2004
Sables as equipped. They are being built on the Ford chassis
that was first offered on Volvo, have a new 203 HP V6, are much
roomer, offer FWD and AWD as well as a CVT and six speed
transmissions. Fords version is the 500.


mike hunt

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 10:50:15 AM4/29/04
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Bill 2 wrote:

> > > My wife crashed two of them [...] the cars gave their life but she did
> > > not

> > Here's a thought for you to chew on: Cars with good enough suspension,
> > steering and brake systems that the crash doesn't happen in the first
> > place.

> Unlikely. A car is only as good as the nut behind the wheel. The car itself
> can only do so much.

Well, of course. I was trying to avoid impugning the poster's wife's poor
driving skills, attention span and/or luck.

DS

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 10:51:49 AM4/29/04
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Marco wrote:

> Really, there's no reason for that matter why Ford and GM couldn't tool
> up and build versions of the Falcon and Commodore in the US. In GM's
> case, apparently, cars based on the 2006 Commodore will be built there.

See, the problem is those two words "based on". It means they take a good
car, ruin the brakes, suspension, lights, signals, mirrors, controls and
displays, interior...

...and sell it in America.

DS

John Horner

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 11:44:12 AM4/29/04
to

>They are being built on the Ford chassis
> that was first offered on Volvo,

That is an interesting spin on what happened :). My understanding is the
Ford 500/Mercury Montego started with the Volvo XC90 design, which is an
evolution of the Volvo 850-S70-S80 platform and has nothing in common with
previous Ford designs.

John

Brent P

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 11:54:04 AM4/29/04
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:
>
>> >> Because mustang headlamps are crap. I still need to get relays, just in
>> >> denial that I can't do better than that.
>> >
>> > You can, you just can't buy something off the shelf and slap it in -- it
>> > takes more work than that.
>>
>> And doesn't make the car look like shit?
>
> And doesn't make the car look like shit. I donno what that joker was
> smoking when he suggested Hyundai cramming in Hyundai lamps.

Because that is what is done in germany to get them ECE compliant.
I think I always put a qualifier I didn't know how it looked or
what was involved. When I found out, the idea was trashed.

>> Now I suppose I could sit down and design some assemblies to hold
>> a set of quad lights that look merely disjointed with the car's styling.

> You could, but it's much simpler and cleaner to take advantage of the
> clear (non-optical) lenses, remove the reflectors from behind them and
> install a set of four Hella modular projector units, either the DOT H9
> units or the E-code H7s. I'm betting you can make a bracket that bolts to
> a flat surface (radiator support) and has a center hole surrounded by four
> bolt holes on a 4 5/8" square pattern...right?

94-97's have optical lenses. 99 up headlamps won't fit unless I start
rebodying the car. My mustang is a '97.

Here is a '97 6cylinder, headlamps on my GT are the same:
http://fpacarclub.com/JS97_Mustang.jpg
headlamp:
http://johnsmustang.com/Catalog/2177/

Here is a '99 up:
http://www.desertsol.com/~kevin/mustang/dunes/gt990912dunes01.jpg
headlamp:
http://johnsmustang.com/Catalog/3788/

At best, the scheme would be to hack up a pair of these:
http://johnsmustang.com/Catalog/2175/

And the hella stuff looks too large to fit two of em in there...
http://www.hella.com/produktion/HellaPortal/WebSite/InternetImages/automotiv_08_2003/scheinwerfer_e.pdf

But of course I don't have a dimensioned drawing or cad model to work from.

After buying a set of cobra headlamps to hack up and the projectors, it's
got to be pushing a grand if not more without even knowing if it can be
pulled off. (no, it's not worth buying the repos where the plastic will
probably yellow in 3 months)

Bill 2

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 12:13:44 PM4/29/04
to

"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...

There is also (possibly) another driver involved in another car that we can
shift the blame to.


BigJo...@mailcity.com

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 1:08:36 PM4/29/04
to
You understanding is not valid. The chassis has nothing to
do with anything developed before Ford took control of Volvo
cars. The engineering is pure Ford and quite a good one at that.


mike hunt

Paul

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 2:40:21 PM4/29/04
to

"Marco" <rbge...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4090e...@news.iprimus.com.au...

Building a crappy car keeps the american sheep going back to the dealer every few
years for a new car (especially if they can convince the sheep to lease as opposed to
buy). Even with that being said, if people would just take care of their cars,
maintain them properly and not drive them like the blonde in the Toyota Highlander
ads (hitting every pothole in sight while applying makeup), they can last much longer
than the manufacturers want them to.

--
Paul

If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

Paul

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 2:52:28 PM4/29/04
to

<BigJo...@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:4091189A...@mailcity.com...

> If you liked the Sable then you will LOVE its replacement. The
> 2005 Montego is available for order from you local
> Lincoln/Mercury dealer as we speak. Pricing has not been
> released but my sources tell me pricing will be similar to 2004
> Sables as equipped. They are being built on the Ford chassis
> that was first offered on Volvo, have a new 203 HP V6, are much
> roomer, offer FWD and AWD as well as a CVT and six speed
> transmissions. Fords version is the 500.

Strange question, but if the cars will be similar to the current Taurus/Sable line,
why change the names - especially if they are popular with the sheep.... I mean
public? For some reason, I just can't conjure up the image of Matt Kensith winning
his next Cup in a Ford 500.

Also, some of you who have been around awhile might remember this, but "Ford 500,"
sounds a little too like "Firestone 500," for my tastes.

E.R.

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 4:56:30 PM4/29/04
to
And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
none other than Daniel J. Stern:

>See, the problem is those two words "based on". It means they take a good
>car, ruin the brakes, suspension, lights, signals, mirrors, controls and
>displays, interior...
>
>...and sell it in America.

Yup, and for the consumer there's a really simple solution to
this: DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT. That'll get 'em thinking. Of course
they then go and buy up all the overseas companies that are taking
their share of the market by producing/importing better cars...

--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply
'91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 4:51:09 PM4/29/04
to
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:

> > You could, but it's much simpler and cleaner to take advantage of the
> > clear (non-optical) lenses, remove the reflectors from behind them and
> > install a set of four Hella modular projector units, either the DOT H9
> > units or the E-code H7s. I'm betting you can make a bracket that bolts to
> > a flat surface (radiator support) and has a center hole surrounded by four
> > bolt holes on a 4 5/8" square pattern...right?
>
> 94-97's have optical lenses. 99 up headlamps won't fit unless I start
> rebodying the car. My mustang is a '97.


1) There exist clear-lens headlamps for your '97. A quick web search will
turn them up.

2) Even if (1) weren't the case, the optics can be polished off the inside
of your plastic lenses. All it takes is progressive abrasives and
patience.


> But of course I don't have a dimensioned drawing or cad model to work from.

http://www.torque.net/~dastern/LAMPS.gif

> it's not worth buying the repos where the plastic will probably yellow
> in 3 months

This, like the '86-'93 Volvo 240 lamps, is a case where the Taiwanese
items probably have *better* anti-UV/anti-scratch than the genuine Ford
product, which has practically none.

DS

Ennui Society

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 5:23:55 PM4/29/04
to
Look through this web site:
http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/car-with-conv-oem-halo-projectors.htm

And see how those guys fitted the Hella modular projection headlamps in
variety of vehicles.

The cleanest and best looking is Jeep Grand Cherokee and US Ford Contour:

http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/images/2002-cherokee-front-closeup.jpg
http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/images/1999-countour-Hella-90mm-front.jpg

The cleverest custom-made headlamps is Ford Taurus SHO with requiste
city lamps:

http://hanker.tripod.com/headlight-level3-project.htm

They need not to be UGLY or shabby.

As always, consult with Daniel Stern Lighting for optimal retrofitment
of wiring and like...

Oliver

Brent P

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 5:33:06 PM4/29/04
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>> 94-97's have optical lenses. 99 up headlamps won't fit unless I start
>> rebodying the car. My mustang is a '97.

> 1) There exist clear-lens headlamps for your '97. A quick web search will
> turn them up.

You mean like the link I provided later in the post to cobra lamps, or
maybe you were refering to the APC lamps? Why chide me as being ignorant
of something while I mention it later in the post?

> 2) Even if (1) weren't the case, the optics can be polished off the inside
> of your plastic lenses. All it takes is progressive abrasives and
> patience.

<sarcasm> Yeah, I got nothing better to do... <sarcasm>

>> But of course I don't have a dimensioned drawing or cad model to work from.

> http://www.torque.net/~dastern/LAMPS.gif

Maybe the ones at the bottom of the page. I'll have to remeasure
the lamps. I had measured them before for sealedbeam style lamps but
there wasn't enough room. I know the top one is out. But for this
kind of work and money I can do something more meaningful to me with
the car.


Ennui Society

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 5:36:31 PM4/29/04
to
http://eucarus.com/mustang.htm

Very close and somewhat good fit. People won't notice it at distance
given the Ford's penchant for big gaps between sheetmetals and lighting
system as well.

Oliver

BOB URZ

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 6:32:59 PM4/29/04
to

Bill 2 wrote:

In my wife's case, she was hit twice by people running red lights.
Not much you can do about that. You can be the safest person in
the world, but you cannot control the people around you.

The 93 that got spun around had the airbag go off. It did keep her out
of the windshield, but it left he lungs polluted for a while from the
fumes of the airbag. Better coughing that skull through window.

Toby Ponsenby

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 9:15:28 PM4/29/04
to
<| Mike...@lycos.com |> did write on 30Apr2004 at 12:39:32 AM

It had to be cheap - after all, the idea was to get us suckered into a
front drive platform. A loss leader?
Unlikely, but possible considering the gains possible, later.

Poor Ford. I feel real sorry for them.
Not.

--
Toby
Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
A: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Bill 2

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 10:12:27 PM4/29/04
to
Q: Why do people snip posts?

"Toby Ponsenby" <to...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:f9e31lnanrz0$.p85yretdipk4.dlg@40tude.net...


A: Because it's annoying to scroll past irrelevant information.


Martin Rogoff

unread,
May 5, 2004, 12:35:30 PM5/5/04
to
On Sat, 1 May 2004 10:19:38 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern"
<das...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Sat, 1 May 2004, KELLI SCHRAMM wrote:
>
>> I think that the problems with the Taurus lie in one specific part of the
>> car. THE TRANSMISSION!
>
>And the IGNITION SWITCHES! (that catch fire)
>And the ALTERNATORS! (that catch fire)
>And the STARTERS! (that fail early and often)
>And the FUEL RETURN LINES! (that leak -- gush -- early and often)
>And the HEADLIGHTS! (that let you see nothing at all after dark)
>And the BRAKES! (that are barely adequate)
>And the ENGINE! (that is another early/often failure)
>And ...
>
>> Credited with saving Ford
>
>That doesn't mean it was a good car, it just means a lot of people bought
>them.


I have a 91 and 95 Taurus. I will agree with the transmission issue.
Ford replaced the 91 transmission for free at almost 60K miles. They
sent me a post card and I hung on to it until the transmission started
acting up. I had to get the transmission on the 95 rebuilt.

I replaced the alternator in the 91.
The 95 has the original alternator.

I have replaced:
struts
batteries
oil and fuel/air/oil filters
PCV valve
rotors/drums and pads/shoes
half shafts

The rotors and drums were not very expensive and the replacements were
much better than the originals.

They both have the original:
IGNITION SWITCHES
STARTERS
FUEL RETURN LINES
HEADLIGHTS - but some new OEM type bulbs
ENGINE

Although I am in the process of troubleshooting a melting fusible link
that feeds the fuse box and the ignition switch in the 91.

Anyone have any troubleshooting tips? I think it is fuse link E
(black/orange wire off the starter solenoid that feeds three
circuits). It works fine in ACC position, but as soon as the switch
goes to RUN the link melts. It is not necessary to try to start the
car, but just putting the switch in RUN causes the link to melt.

I figure the following items could cause this:
a short in the ignition switch
a short in the fuel pump/wiring (the pump is enabled in RUN/START)
a short in the coil (although this ohms out correctly)
the ignition module on the distributor

To isolate the problem I could start removing parts and cutting wires,
but is there a better way?

Brent P

unread,
Apr 29, 2004, 11:38:54 PM4/29/04
to
In article <1092sje...@corp.supernews.com>, Ennui Society wrote:

> The cleverest custom-made headlamps is Ford Taurus SHO with requiste
> city lamps:

> http://hanker.tripod.com/headlight-level3-project.htm

Looks sort of mad-maxish....

> They need not to be UGLY or shabby.

Some of them looked good, but the hours needed to do it....
The money is not as bad as I thought for the H9s, but the ECE ones are.
One place selling the H9s said there is little to no difference in
performance of the two kinds of hella projector units. I dunno to believe
it or not. It's an interesting option in any case.

atec

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 12:04:51 AM4/30/04
to
because they don't know how to top post correctly ?

cama...@my-deja.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 9:29:16 AM4/30/04
to
Ennui Society wrote:
> Look through this web site:
> http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/car-with-conv-oem-halo-projectors.htm
>
> And see how those guys fitted the Hella modular projection headlamps in
> variety of vehicles.

Nice page. While I don't like the look of the round headlights it's nice
to know there are alternatives to the stock sealed beams on my Camaro.
The Caravan looked pretty cool with the projector lights too. Maybe
worth mentioning to my parents 'cause my dad's complained about the
lights on their '98, not that they're that bad.

>
> The cleanest and best looking is Jeep Grand Cherokee and US Ford Contour:
>
> http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/images/2002-cherokee-front-closeup.jpg
> http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/images/1999-countour-Hella-90mm-front.jpg
>
> The cleverest custom-made headlamps is Ford Taurus SHO with requiste
> city lamps:
>
> http://hanker.tripod.com/headlight-level3-project.htm

Neat, if you have the time...

>
> They need not to be UGLY or shabby.
>
> As always, consult with Daniel Stern Lighting for optimal retrofitment
> of wiring and like...

You'd probably be wise waiting a little until he drops his attitude
problem somewhat.

>
> Oliver
Ulf

Bill 2

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 10:04:35 AM4/30/04
to

"atec" <"atec77(notspam)"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4091D063...@hotmail.com...

The answer is at the bottom of my other post.


Ennui Society

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 2:54:57 PM4/30/04
to
cama...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Ennui Society wrote:
>
>> Look through this web site:
>> http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/car-with-conv-oem-halo-projectors.htm
>>
>> And see how those guys fitted the Hella modular projection headlamps
>> in variety of vehicles.
>
>
> Nice page. While I don't like the look of the round headlights it's nice
> to know there are alternatives to the stock sealed beams on my Camaro.
> The Caravan looked pretty cool with the projector lights too. Maybe
> worth mentioning to my parents 'cause my dad's complained about the
> lights on their '98, not that they're that bad.

Try the OEM ECE headlamps first. They're big improvement over the US DOT
units. I saw the illuminating difference (no pun intended) when we hired
a Chrysler Voyager (European version) in Germany and when I rode Dodge
Caravan in USA.

>> The cleanest and best looking is Jeep Grand Cherokee and US Ford Contour:
>>
>> http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/images/2002-cherokee-front-closeup.jpg
>> http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/images/1999-countour-Hella-90mm-front.jpg
>>
>>
>> The cleverest custom-made headlamps is Ford Taurus SHO with requiste
>> city lamps:
>>
>> http://hanker.tripod.com/headlight-level3-project.htm
>
>
> Neat, if you have the time...
>
>>
>> They need not to be UGLY or shabby.
>>
>> As always, consult with Daniel Stern Lighting for optimal retrofitment
>> of wiring and like...
>
>
> You'd probably be wise waiting a little until he drops his attitude
> problem somewhat.

Well, I've learnt to tolerate his attitude and appreciate his extensive
knowledge on the lighting system and design as well as vast access to
the sources. I visited his home before and realised that he's geninue
and gregarious when demonstrating the different headlamp units and beam
patterns on the wall. Amazing to see his collection of lighting units
and ancillaries. I learnt a lot that day and understood the need for
accurate information and like. I don't blame him for his attitude toward
people who ramble here in the newsgroups without backing their claims
with facts or studies.

The information and numbers might be cold and clinical, but the minute
difference can have larger impact. Just like the presidential election
fiasco in 2000.

It's always better to nip the weeds before they bloom into flowers and
seeds and spread their woes to other yards. In other word, correct
others' errors before they become widespread and assumed to be
versimilitudes.

DustyR...@mailcity.com

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 3:39:14 PM4/30/04
to
The 500 and Montego have nothing that is similar to the
Taurus/Sable, except pricing and FWD. '500' was a model
of the Ford Fairlaine of yor via the Indianapolis '500'


mike hunt

Daniel J. Stern

unread,
Apr 30, 2004, 10:50:08 PM4/30/04
to
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:

> Some of them looked good, but the hours needed to do it.... The money
> is not as bad as I thought for the H9s, but the ECE ones are.

You must be asking the wrong guys for prices.

> One place
> selling the H9s said there is little to no difference in performance of
> the two kinds of hella projector units.

Dave S., who is almost certainly the one who told you that, is a good guy.
But he's wrong on this one. There is only ONE part in common between the
DOT and ECE Hella modules: The clear, nonoptical cover lens/bracket
assembly. ALL the optics are completely different, as is the bulb.

Best setup is the ECE units with thoughtfully-selected bulbs. That said,
the DOT units aren't bad at all.

DS

Brent P

unread,
May 1, 2004, 12:20:00 AM5/1/04
to
In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Brent P wrote:
>
>> Some of them looked good, but the hours needed to do it.... The money
>> is not as bad as I thought for the H9s, but the ECE ones are.

> You must be asking the wrong guys for prices.

Just what I found surfing the web, ~$57 each for the H9s, $104 each for the
ECE ones at the one place I found them at. (90mm size)



>> One place
>> selling the H9s said there is little to no difference in performance of
>> the two kinds of hella projector units.

> Dave S., who is almost certainly the one who told you that, is a good guy.

It was just on a page of one of the places selling them... didn't bookmark
it. I haven't found the right mix of keywords to find more than few places
that sell them.

> But he's wrong on this one. There is only ONE part in common between the
> DOT and ECE Hella modules: The clear, nonoptical cover lens/bracket
> assembly. ALL the optics are completely different, as is the bulb.

I figured as much.

> Best setup is the ECE units with thoughtfully-selected bulbs. That said,
> the DOT units aren't bad at all.

I thought so. Hopefully everyone doesn't sell them at such a premium.

athol

unread,
May 1, 2004, 8:20:46 PM5/1/04
to
In aus.cars KELLI SCHRAMM <vanthemu...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I think that the problems with the Taurus lie in one specific part of the
> car. THE TRANSMISSION!!!!!!!

Well, it definately had a problem there - it drove the wrong wheels.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

DTJ

unread,
May 1, 2004, 10:41:40 PM5/1/04
to
On Sat, 01 May 2004 12:40:28 GMT, "KELLI SCHRAMM"
<vanthemu...@verizon.net> wrote:

>seem to not have been ironed out until the 2000 models. I found it to be a
>great car with excellent handling and plenty of power - and with the
>exception of the 4 trannys I had to put in my 93 Taurus, it was great.

I always wonder about the intelligence of people who say a company
makes a great car, except for the fact that it sucks.

The Lindbergh Baby

unread,
May 2, 2004, 9:00:16 AM5/2/04
to
Bill 2 wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <das...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
>
>>
>>On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Harry Face wrote:
>>
>>
>>>March 22nd, the last Ford Taurus rolled of the the assembly line here in
>>>Chicago. The Torrence Avenue plant will shut down to retool. Mercury
>>>Sable production ended in March.

>>
>>Hallelujah; thus ends 18 model years of shitty vehicles millions of
>>Americans were foolish enough to buy. Ford was laughed out of the
>>European, Japanese and Australian markets with this sorry vehicle after
>>one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was particularly
>>loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a comparably-sized car of
>>vastly better build quality, reliability, utility and drivability.
>
>
> We're on our second Taurus and don't have any complaints. Once they got the
> AXOD under control, the Taurus wasn't so bad with a 3.0 engine. It's not

> like anyone else has ever continuously continued to manufacture a shitty
> transmission, that made its way into almost the entire
> lineup*cough*A604*cough*, not to mention the number of shitty engines that
> have made their way into Chrysler cars (Mitsubishi or otherwise).

I don't pay much attention to individual owner stories (a statistic of
one is meaningless) but I've never encountered a car as much as the
Taurus/Sable that has left a trail of such unhappy owners. Literally
everyone I know (about a dozen people total, from the first model year
to the big funky oval one) said "Never again!" The laundry list of
repairs and recalls from that model line is amazing. So if you've
really never had any complaints, consider yourself very very very lucky.

John

--
To reply, remove "die.spammers" from address


Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven

The Lindbergh Baby

unread,
May 2, 2004, 9:10:45 AM5/2/04
to
Bob Urz wrote:

> I have owned 4. Not a single motor failure, not a single trannie
> failure.

Wow. I have owned far more cars than that period, and not a single
motor failure from any of them. --Oh, except the Ford. (Granada,
though, not Taurus. To give you a comparison--Granada failure at 93,000
miles: Mechanic: "Well, what do you expect, it had 93,000 miles?" Subaru
slight knock at 168,000 miles: Mechanic: "Hmph, wonder why it's doing
that? Those babies are just getting broken it.")

> They get around good in the snow. They haul the family
> around.

Basic requirements of any competent car. Next you'll be saying you're
impressed because it doesn't burst into flame when you start it. ;-)

> Will a 3.0 win any races? No, but who cares. Mileage and
> ride are average. How many have you owned Dan? Any personal experience
> with more than one taurus?

As I've said in another post, I've known at least ten Taurus owners over
the years and they've all said "Never again!" Myself I've never owned
one, but test-drove one once and one of the belts slipped while we were
out for a test drive and the car stalled in the middle of the street.
The car salesman had to get a tow! (He didn't know it was the belt till
we got back to the showroom.) Admittedly, it was a used (two year old)
car, but still...

> My wife crashed two of them. survived both wrecks in good shape.
> The cars gave there lives, but my wife did not have to.
> Tell me a taurus is not safe dan.

Again, many people have survived crashes in many cars. So what? My
Nissan Altima "saved" me.

> Do i have to fix my older taurus? You BET! but what old higher mileage
> car do you NOT have to fix?

How old? I had an '87 Subaru that went to 226,000 miles before I got
sick of the sight of her and sold her, without ever having a major
repair save for a CV joint. I had an Altima that had almost all
original parts save for periodic maintenance till I totalled that. It
had close to 200,000 miles. Maintenance for that car was close to $0.

> That's the price you pay for no car
> payments.

Not true. See above. In fact, since repairs on average are higher than
most car payments, that's simply bullshit. My car payments are
currently just $221 a month. I rarely see a repair that low.

> And for the most part the parts are reasonable and i can
> do most all the work myself. I will just wait until my wife crashes
> the next one and buy another newer one.

I wouldn't let her drive if that's how she really is.

cama...@my-deja.com

unread,
May 2, 2004, 11:36:15 AM5/2/04
to
Ennui Society wrote:
> cama...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Ennui Society wrote:
>>
>>> Look through this web site:
>>> http://faq.auto.light.tripod.com/car-with-conv-oem-halo-projectors.htm
>>>
>>> And see how those guys fitted the Hella modular projection headlamps
>>> in variety of vehicles.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nice page. While I don't like the look of the round headlights it's
>> nice to know there are alternatives to the stock sealed beams on my
>> Camaro. The Caravan looked pretty cool with the projector lights too.
>> Maybe worth mentioning to my parents 'cause my dad's complained about
>> the lights on their '98, not that they're that bad.
>
>
> Try the OEM ECE headlamps first. They're big improvement over the US DOT
> units. I saw the illuminating difference (no pun intended) when we hired
> a Chrysler Voyager (European version) in Germany and when I rode Dodge
> Caravan in USA.

I've driven a Euro spec. Voyager and I don't remember the headlights
being that much better. Sure, they had a more "European" beam pattern,
but no real improvement. I didn't drive my parents Caravan until months
later though, so it's difficult to compare.

What I'd like to know is how good the ECE projection low beam lights are
compared to ex. Cibie CSR. The ones I had on my previous BMW were just
worthless.

I'm not questioning his knowledge, I just feel he might help more people
with a different attitude.

>
Ulf

Timothy J. Lee

unread,
May 3, 2004, 12:50:20 PM5/3/04
to
In article <408f8...@newsfeed.slurp.net>,
Nate Nagel <njn...@toadliquor.net> wrote:
>The *really* sad thing is that when she went to trade in Taurus #2 I
>told her she ought to test drive a Contour as it was a much nicer car
>even though it was smaller, and when she mentioned it to the salesman at
>the dealership, and she was firmly guided away from the Contour... back
>into another Taurus...

The "bigger is always better" mentality common in the US...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Damaeus

unread,
May 4, 2004, 4:39:10 AM5/4/04
to
In news:alt.autos.ford, BigJo...@mailcity.com posted on Thu, 29 Apr
2004 11:00:42 -0400:

> If you liked the Sable then you will LOVE its replacement. The
> 2005 Montego is available for order from you local
> Lincoln/Mercury dealer as we speak.

I looked at the Mercury website to see the Montego. The grill on the
front reminds me of that woman in the old horror flick Nosferatu. I may
get a Ford pickup instead, or some other brand of car as long as it has a
very robust air conditioner like my Sable, which allows me to blow my
frosty breath at high noon in the middle of summer. Plus the interior of
the Montego looks cheap. It reminds me of a '76 Toyota Corona.

dizzy

unread,
May 4, 2004, 7:40:56 PM5/4/04
to
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:18:24 -0400, BenD...@mailcity.com wrote:

>You mean those great well built cars like the Mercury Capri
>convertible that Ford imported?

I owned a Capri, briefly. It was free. It was towed. I let them
keep it.

SgtSilicon

unread,
May 4, 2004, 9:33:21 PM5/4/04
to
On Sun, 02 May 2004 13:00:16 GMT, The Lindbergh Baby
<johngra...@die.spammersearthlink.net> wrote:

>I don't pay much attention to individual owner stories (a statistic of
>one is meaningless) but I've never encountered a car as much as the
>Taurus/Sable that has left a trail of such unhappy owners. Literally
>everyone I know (about a dozen people total, from the first model year
>to the big funky oval one) said "Never again!" The laundry list of
>repairs and recalls from that model line is amazing. So if you've
>really never had any complaints, consider yourself very very very lucky.

I hear ya but consider... if the Taurus is an extremely popular seller
it might just be that there are more of them for you to hear bad
things about. I don't know about you and your aquaintences, but a lot
of people tend to complain quicker than they sing praises (especially
if things are merely satisfactory). I'm not saying your feel on this
isn't right, just that there may be other reasons.

** To email a reply, please remove everything up to and
including the underscore in my email reply header.

Greg Rudd

unread,
May 4, 2004, 11:51:56 PM5/4/04
to
Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Harry Face wrote:
>
>> March 22nd, the last Ford Taurus rolled of the the assembly line here in
>> Chicago. The Torrence Avenue plant will shut down to retool. Mercury
>> Sable production ended in March.
>
> Hallelujah; thus ends 18 model years of shitty vehicles millions of
> Americans were foolish enough to buy. Ford was laughed out of the
> European, Japanese and Australian markets with this sorry vehicle after
> one or two model years' attempts in each. The laughter was particularly
> loud in Australia, where the local Falcon is a comparably-sized car of

> vastly better build quality, reliability, utility and driveability.
>

And to add even further insult to Ford US the Ford Falcons design that the
Taurus was compared to dated back to the EA of 1988 which was one of Fords
better styling efforts of the late 1980's

--
Greg Rudd

Spam Bait

mini...@transport.nsw.gov.au
pres...@whitehouse.gov

Neo

unread,
May 5, 2004, 5:27:39 PM5/5/04
to
"Bill 2" <as...@asdf.com> wrote in message news:<ZQEjc.31139$Np3.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...

>
> I heard rumors that the 500 will be based on the Mazda 6 platform.

Actually, on the Volvo S80's. The Mazda 6 should cede its platform to
the car formerly knowns as "Futura" (they haven't decided on its new
name, as this was already copyrighted).

ruud

unread,
May 7, 2004, 7:23:39 PM5/7/04
to
Ford relies on the "buy American" type-- as do the two other American
car companies.

Period.

There will always be suckers in this demo who will love the PT
Cruiser, the Chrysler 300, the Mustang and the Corvette, etc- because
they're "American".

Just like Bush relies on blind patriotism to get re-elected.

Brad Coon

unread,
May 9, 2004, 8:26:21 AM5/9/04
to

<Mike...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:40B13AFB...@mailcity.com...
> I like the Mustang GT because it will blow the doors of anything
> in its price range, not because it American made.
> To buy anything domestic or foreign that will beat it, you
> need to spend up to $10,000 more and that's un-American ;)
Ummmm...wrong again Mike,

04 Mustang GT Base invoice is $ 23,355
Horse power is 260
Quarter mile time is 14.2 seconds
Weight 3347


04 Dodge Neon SRT base invoice is $19,515
Horsepower is 230
Quarter mile time is 13.8 seconds
Weight 2900

04 Subaru WRX STI 4wd base invoice is $ 29,245
Horsepower is 300
Quarter mile time is 13.4 seconds
weight 3263

You stated you need to pay $ 10,000 more for a car that would beat the
stang. Well above is one that costs less and one that costs $6000 more. Both
will hand the stang a loss (drivers being equal). Please give us some more
of your BS. It's time to hang it up Mike, this game has passed you by.
04 Dodge Neon SRT


Chris Phillipo

unread,
May 9, 2004, 5:42:41 PM5/9/04
to
In article <40B2444C...@lycos.com>, Mike...@mailcity.com says...
> Ya right, where do you live in Canada? Who pays list? How many
> GT coupes do you want to buy for 22K? I paid less than 26K for
> my 2003 GT convertible, brand new, last September.
> Comparably equipped Toyotas and Chryslers V6's convertibles
> I priced were at least 7K more and they eat my dust.
>
>
> mike hunt
>

Hi Mike, nice tyo see you're full of shit over ehre too. So now you
live in Canada?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Chris Phillipo

unread,
May 9, 2004, 5:43:11 PM5/9/04
to
In article <40B13AFB...@mailcity.com>, Mike...@mailcity.com
says...

> I like the Mustang GT because it will blow the doors of anything
> in its price range, not because it American made.
> To buy anything domestic or foreign that will beat it, you
> need to spend up to $10,000 more and that's un-American ;)
>
>
>
> mike hunt

As long as you don't want to go around a corner it's great.

Brad Coon

unread,
May 10, 2004, 1:37:38 PM5/10/04
to

<Mike...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:40B2444C...@lycos.com...

> Ya right, where do you live in Canada? Who pays list? How many
> GT coupes do you want to buy for 22K? I paid less than 26K for
> my 2003 GT convertible, brand new, last September.
> Comparably equipped Toyotas and Chryslers V6's convertibles
> I priced were at least 7K more and they eat my dust.
>
>
> mike hunt

Mike , we all know you are a little slow , but the prices I posted (below
for your short memory) are INVOICE , not list. You spout off about how the
Mustang will 'blow the doors off anything comparibly priced, get PROVEN
wrong (as you do in most posts in all of the newsgroups that you post to)
and then avoid the question. How soon you change the subject when you are
proven completely wrong. Canada? Try overtaxed NY.

The Lindbergh Baby

unread,
May 10, 2004, 3:12:17 PM5/10/04
to
SgtSilicon wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2004 13:00:16 GMT, The Lindbergh Baby
> <johngra...@die.spammersearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't pay much attention to individual owner stories (a statistic of
>>one is meaningless) but I've never encountered a car as much as the
>>Taurus/Sable that has left a trail of such unhappy owners. Literally
>>everyone I know (about a dozen people total, from the first model year
>>to the big funky oval one) said "Never again!" The laundry list of
>>repairs and recalls from that model line is amazing. So if you've
>>really never had any complaints, consider yourself very very very lucky.
>
>
> I hear ya but consider... if the Taurus is an extremely popular seller
> it might just be that there are more of them for you to hear bad
> things about.

Your mathematical reasoning is faulty. There'd also be more of them to
hear good things about, if all other things were equal.

Also, the T isn't more popular than the Camry or Accord, and I know far
more owners of those vehicles, and except for one complaint that the A
is underpowered for its price (and thus that person chose the Camry)
I've never heard a complaint, and certainly not complaints about things
breaking left and right.

Brad Coon

unread,
May 10, 2004, 6:57:31 PM5/10/04
to
OK Mike, I know you suffer from some dillusions, but let me quote YOU.(That
means you said this)...."I like the Mustang GT because it will blow the
doors off anything
in its price range, not because it American made." Then dear ole Mike, you
had a memory lapse and tried to change your logic midstream in your response
(this gets funny)....." Only in your small world is there anything 'wrong.'
You have yet to name anything within ten grand that will blow the doors off
of a GT.
So first the Mustang GT will blow the doors off anything in its price
range , then when proven WRONG (again lol) you change it to Anything within
10 grand that will blow the doors off a GT. What is it Mike ?? Gincoba time
buddy.
Regardless, even with your change in story to try and cover your error
you are still ummm how do I say it...WRONG. One car that that comes to
mind is the Subaru WRX STI.... 6 grand more ,1 sec quicker in quarter and 4
wheel drive , will get through corners way better than a stang. And lets not
forget the 3 grand less NEON SRT That is just a tad quicker I'll give you
that but less money.
For my money I'd drive the Mustang , I like it better , but I am able to
admit that "my" car isnt the best all the time, you on the other hand are so
far Ford brainwashed that you can't see the truth thru the Blue oval haze
around your head. Ford makes good stuff , my 03 Eddie Bauer explorer in my
opinion is a GREAT suv and I chose it over the new 4runner..but ,Bring on
the lies , I love to keep using real numbers (not Mikes imaginary numbers)
to prove you wrong. Liar...Sad.
Brad

<Melvin...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:40B38AC6...@mailcity.com...
> Only in your small world is there anything 'wrong.' You have yet
> to name anything within ten grand that will blow the doors off of
> a GT. New Mustang GT's can be had at the prices I quoted, go do
> some shopping the come back in when you know what you are talking
> about.
>
>
> mike hunt

Brad Coon

unread,
May 11, 2004, 4:55:09 PM5/11/04
to
Ok , Mike, I don't know how to make this simpler , maybe you can answer YES
or NO to this simple question: The Dodge SRT Neon is quicker than the GT in
the quarter mile and handles as good if not better in the turns. It (the
neon) costs less so I guess thats in the PRICE range. Heres the million
dollar question ....Does a Mustang GT blow its doors off. (yes or no
please)_____
Now unless in your mind 2+2=5, the answer to that question is NO. Of
course a GT that is a little slower (not alot grant you) does NOT "blow the
doors off" a SRT Neon..... Which makes your quoted statement below false.
Any questions?
Brad

<Melvin...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:40B4D2D3...@mailcity.com...
> Once again you are wrong in what you perceive to have read


> and in what you post. Actually I said:
>
> < I like the Mustang GT because it will blow the doors of

> < anything in its PRICE range, not because it American made.
> < To buy anything domestic or foreign that will BEAT it, you
> < need to spend UP TO $10,000 MORE and that's un-American ;)

mossrite

unread,
May 11, 2004, 5:56:50 PM5/11/04
to
....Does a Mustang GT blow its doors off. (yes or no

I've had three Mustangs and never had a problem with doors blowing off


nospam.c...@snyder.on.ca

unread,
May 12, 2004, 4:11:37 PM5/12/04
to
On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:55:09 GMT, "Brad Coon"
<bcoon1NOS...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>Ok , Mike, I don't know how to make this simpler , maybe you can answer YES
>or NO to this simple question: The Dodge SRT Neon is quicker than the GT in
>the quarter mile and handles as good if not better in the turns. It (the
>neon) costs less so I guess thats in the PRICE range. Heres the million
>dollar question ....Does a Mustang GT blow its doors off. (yes or no
>please)_____
> Now unless in your mind 2+2=5, the answer to that question is NO. Of
>course a GT that is a little slower (not alot grant you) does NOT "blow the
>doors off" a SRT Neon..... Which makes your quoted statement below false.
>Any questions?
>Brad

The answer is not can it blow the doors off - it's can it do it 2
years from now?
IOW, RELIABILITY.
The 'stang engine has (generally) proven to be much more reliable than
the highly stressed Neon.

0 new messages