Is Ford Running on Empty?
Grover C. McCoury III
Dearborn, Mich.
A fish tank as big as a flat-screen television dominates one wall of Bill Ford’s office. Tulips, tired and randomly arranged, droop from vases on nearby tables. A jumble of orchids and tropical plants compete for space behind his desk, and a closet has a hidden espresso machine where Mr. Ford, the Ford Motor Company’s chief executive, retreats several times a day to brew high-octane shots.
If Mr. Ford’s office smacks of an overgrown boomer’s pad, nearly everything else around it offers a corporate version of Miss Havisham — from the automotive giant’s headquarters, built in 1956 and known locally as the Glass House, to the hallways dotted with stylized black-and-white photographs from the company’s glory days decades ago.
In the executive dining room, the last of its kind at Detroit’s big automakers, waitresses take orders from a multicourse menu and bring silver finger bowls between the main course and dessert. Many of the Glass House’s walls, as well as the wood-paneled and softly lit lobby of the company’s design center, feature portraits of Mr. Ford’s ancestors, like his legendary great-grandfather Henry Ford, his grandfather Edsel Ford and his father, William Clay Ford Sr.
The answer to whether Mr. Ford’s portrait will hang among them one day, and whether there will eventually even be a headquarters where such portraits can hang, now rests in his hands. He could either be the Ford that resurrects one of the biggest companies on earth, or perhaps become the last Ford to run it. Few are more aware of this than Mr. Ford himself, who, at 49, holds a daunting trio of jobs, as chairman, chief executive and, since earlier this month, chair of its executive operating committee, making him Ford’s de facto chief operating officer, too.
“There’s nobody that has more at stake in this company than I do,” he said in a recent interview here. “Not just financially, but emotionally, and historically and everything else.”
Mr. Ford’s challenges are extraordinary. His company reported losses of $1.6 billion in North America last year and lost $1.2 billion worldwide in the first quarter this year. On Thursday, Ford halved its quarterly dividend to a nickel to preserve cash, and analysts expect the company to report tepid second-quarter earnings this week. Many are already forecasting a third-quarter loss. With analysts speculating that the dividend cut means that Ford’s fortunes are worsening, Mr. Ford issued a statement noting that “the headwinds we faced at the beginning of 2006 have only become stronger.”
As Mr. Ford tries to stem a slide that has taken his company from 25 percent of the American market in 2000 to about 18 percent now, he must preserve his family’s legacy, fight off Asian automakers’ ferocious assault on Detroit and somehow realize his ambition, as yet unfulfilled, to make Ford the environmental leader among American auto companies.
A casual and ebullient man, Mr. Ford personally owns 6.3 million Ford shares, making him the company’s largest individual holder. The extended Ford family as a whole, which reasserted itself five years ago when it led the ouster of Jacques Nasser as chief executive and replaced him with Mr. Ford, owns 40 percent of the company’s super-voting shares. Ever since Mr. Ford assumed Mr. Nasser’s mantle, there have been doubts, some only thinly veiled, among analysts, investors and employees that he has the chops for the job.
When he started, his widely held image was that of a reluctant executive who would rather be practicing yoga, fly fishing or traveling somewhere with his wife and four children than be corralled in his corner office. Now, as he juggles an even more burdensome troika of job titles and responsibilities, Mr. Ford says he is energized in a way that he was not during his first years as chief executive.
“I’m just a lot more comfortable in this job,” he said. “I mean, you know, to use a cliché, I think I’ve really grown in this job; but I think it’s also because my instincts were right.”
BUT while Mr. Ford has partially streamlined Ford’s bureaucracy and become its public face during his tenure, some of his instincts have not born fruit. A devoted environmentalist, he still bowed early on to the wishes of Ford’s entrenched middle managers and senior executives who wanted the company to keep churning out very profitable but gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks during a period when oil prices were dirt cheap.
Had Mr. Ford produced more fuel-efficient vehicles like hybrids sooner, he not only would have found his company keeping pace with nimble foreign competitors like Toyota when oil prices spiked, but he also would have been able to illustrate the bottom-line merit of his environmental values. Instead, Ford, is again in the all-too-familiar spot of playing corporate catch-up.
As the entire American auto industry comes to grips with challenges that threaten to permanently eclipse its dominance at home and abroad, and as uncertainties about Ford’s future stir anxieties within his family, Mr. Ford asserts that he and his company are responding to the monumental shifts that are shaking the foundations of his business.
“The world has played out like I thought it would, and it’s given me not only a renewed sense of confidence but one of urgency,” he said. “The question is, what are we changing into and how fast can we get there?”
Not fast enough, say some. The stark reality, which Ford as well as General Motors need to accept, analysts say, is that the companies’ fates now hang in the balance.
“Both these companies could fail,” said John Casesa, a veteran auto industry analyst who runs his own consulting firm. “That’s how fundamental the problems are in Detroit.”
A few miles east of Mr. Ford’s office, dozens of visitors from as far away as Australia line up each day to tour Ford’s newest assembly plant inside the sprawling River Rouge complex, whose largely vacant buildings once ranked among the biggest industrial centers in the world. They start their tour at the plant, which opened two years ago, by watching a film that depicts the life of Henry Ford and the activities of succeeding generations of Fords.
They can look out at 1,500 trees surrounding the complex or learn that the new plant’s roof, covered with tough, bushy sedum, is part of Mr. Ford’s goal of building a “green” factory, one that will help restore the environment rather than pollute the surrounding skies with filthy smoke as the Rouge complex once did. On an ideal day, tourists also can watch Ford workers building the big F-Series pickup truck, the country’s best-selling vehicle for almost 30 years running, and the indisputable gusher in Ford’s revenue stream.
Sometimes, though, tourists go home without seeing any trucks glide down the assembly line, idled occasionally because it makes no sense to ship vehicles that dealers cannot sell. Even so, Mr. Ford considers the new plant as one of his most important victories over company executives who argued that it was an expensive folly.
Completing the plant “validated” him, Mr. Ford said. “I got very little support,” he recalled, “and yet I said: ‘We’re going to do it. We’re just going to do it.’ ”
Mr. Ford will need that firmness of mind if he intends to preserve three things he says are of paramount importance to him at Ford: the company itself, his family’s legacy and a clean environmental record. He has foregone a salary over the last year and said he intended to keep it that way until he successfully revived Ford’s fortunes.
The family’s financial stake in Ford, including nonvoting common stock and a more powerful and separate class of voting shares, is currently worth approximately $460 million, down almost half since Ford celebrated its 100th corporate birthday three years ago; Mr. Ford’s personal stake is worth about $43 million. A combination of financial self-interest and a prized familial legacy makes Mr. Ford’s tasks more personally imperative than they might typically be at other public companies in need of a turnaround — like G.M., for example, whose headquarters Mr. Ford can spy from his office on a clear day.
As Mr. Ford watches G.M. entertain a potentially historic alliance with a French automaker, Renault, and a Japanese automaker, Nissan, he says he will not rule out a similar path for his company, which already has management control of another Japanese auto company, Mazda. But Mr. Ford said he had more pressing concerns. “Regardless of any deal that we might envision,” he said, “the fact is that we have to fix our North American business.”
The company’s North American operation is hamstrung by lackluster product lines, heavy losses that have delayed new vehicle development and, until recently, constant executive turnover that forced underlings to wait until new bosses came on board. Mr. Ford has to tackle all of these problems while overseeing a potentially backbreaking combination of jobs.
“It defies my imagination how he can get through a day with the proper amount of attention to each position,” said Michael Useem, a management professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. “If he can, more power to him.”
MR. FORD said his biggest challenge is time management, as well as a constant switching of corporate roles. In one moment, he occupies Ford’s conceptual role as chairman; in the next, a strategic role as chief executive; and in the next, the nitty-gritty management role of overseeing daily operations. “I can’t delegate to anybody,” he said.
Why take all of that on? Because controlling those jobs is how Mr. Ford believes that he can get his own way inside an unyielding corporate bureaucracy — something that he says has not occurred earlier despite his name and apparent clout. Mr. Ford bluntly contends that managers stymied him, as both chairman and chief executive, by getting in the way of projects like the Rouge plant and a hybrid version of the Ford Escape, a small sport utility vehicle
The Escape Hybrid, which Ford began developing in 1998 in response to Toyota’s hybrid plans, languished for nearly six years before reaching the market. Even then, Mr. Ford said, he had to fight with marketing officials who argued that there was no point spending much money on a vehicle that generated sales of only 20,000 units a year, despite its symbolism as the first hybrid from a Detroit car company.
Mr. Ford contends that projects like the hybrid Escape will move more swiftly with his own handpicked team members in place, the most crucial of whom is his new chief of staff, Steven K. Hamp, his closest friend, brother-in-law and determined gatekeeper. “He has probably voiced every frustration you can imagine to me with respect to this company,” said Mr. Hamp, who previously ran the world-famous Henry Ford Museum and is married to Mr. Ford’s sister, Sheila.
Associates say Mr. Ford endured years of condescending behavior by subordinates who considered his wealth and interest in social causes no match for the years they had toiled in the company’s trenches, even though Mr. Ford himself spent more than 20 years in a variety of lower-level jobs. They also say that other executives, who spent as much time managing their careers as they did managing the company, saw Mr. Ford as a roadblock to the top and tried to undermine him. Yet, others see these complaints as excuses for actions that Mr. Ford did not take.
“I don’t think Ford has suffered from a lack of talent the past 15 years,” Mr. Casesa said. “The issue is strategy and implementation, rather than the people involved.”
EARLIER this year, an entire table of Mr. Ford’s relatives — his cousins Edsel B. Ford II and Elena Ford, and Edsel’s son, Henry Ford III — looked on during a luncheon at the Detroit Athletic Club as Mr. Ford was named automotive executive of the year. Despite the united front, Mr. Ford acknowledges that family members are concerned about Ford’s declining fortunes, and its stock price, which, at $6.38, is cheaper than a pound of coffee at Starbucks, where Mr. Ford could once escape anonymously during the workday. (Having relocated his family from tony Grosse Pointe a few years ago, he still drops in to local coffee shops in the college town they now call home, Ann Arbor.)
While declining to speak for the family, Mr. Hamp also acknowledged its apprehensions. “They’re very intelligent people who have observed this company for a long time; they recognize the challenges that this company faces,” he said. “They have, it’s fair to say, as many concerns as anyone else — board member, investor, employee.”
Those concerns helped convince Mr. Ford to take on the job of chief operating officer, and Mr. Hamp helps him decide which meetings and projects deserve his attention. Mr. Hamp said he encouraged Mr. Ford to remember that “we need to go faster, we need to make decisions more quickly, we need to cut costs and we need to do those things that are a part of an organization that needs to fix its problems.”
Mr. Ford is stressing that same message to his executive team. This spring, he took a dozen of Ford’s most senior executives to a Michigan resort for a combination Big Chill-style bonding and brainstorming weekend, intended to lay the groundwork for his assumption of greater operating duties. The executives cooked a salmon dinner together, with Mr. Ford, a vegetarian, in charge of the brown rice. They spent hours talking about his turnaround plan, called “the Way Forward,” which he rolled out at a splashy news conference in January and which calls for the company to close two dozen plants and eliminate 30,000 jobs through 2010.
Mr. Ford vowed to slow and then reverse the company’s market-share slide and to return to profitability by 2008. Yet much about his approach remains unclear, particularly where his devotion to the environment is concerned. Although Ford has promoted its commitment to hybrids in television commercials featuring Kermit the Frog, last month it backed off plans to build 250,000 hybrid vehicles a year by 2010. Instead, Ford said it would double the number of flexible fuel vehicles it produces, to two million a year by 2010, while continuing to develop hybrid vehicles.
It was the second time during Mr. Ford’s tenure in the senior ranks that the company had reneged on an environmental promise. In 2000, when he was chairman, it pledged a 25 percent improvement in the fuel efficiency of its S.U.V.’s by 2005. But the effort was set aside in 2002, because Ford did not have the technology to achieve it, Mr. Ford told shareholders in an environmental report.
“He held himself out as the great green hope,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s global warming program. “The fear is that he will turn into the great green hoax.”
Mr. Ford, accustomed to such criticism, says the company needs to keep its options open. Technology is developing so rapidly, he says, that hybrids may not be the way to go, even though Toyota, the acknowledged leader in hybrid development, plans to have one million hybrids on the road by the end of the decade. Green debate aside, however, it will not be hybrids or fuel-efficient vehicles that end Ford’s slide: it will be an overall fleet of attractive, reliable cars that can battle Toyota and other auto companies for buyers.
Ford’s lineup includes two hits: the Mustang and the Fusion, one of three midsized cars that the company rolled out in the last year. Thanks to this pair, Ford’s car sales are up this year even though its overall sales and market share are down from 2005, continuing a decline that began around the start of the decade. Ford’s overreliance on pickup trucks and S.U.V.’s has hurt it. The latest version of the Explorer, long its best-selling sport utility, made its debut last fall just as gas prices began soaring; sales of the vehicle have slumped.
Consumers, meanwhile, are clamoring for fuel-efficient small cars, but in the United States Ford does not sell anything smaller than the Focus, leaving a missing rung at the bottom of its product ladder and another gap in its pro-environment philosophy. To jump-start things, Ford executives say, they have to develop vehicles they can sell without discounts and which buyers will load with expensive options like navigation systems and powerful engines. The Way Forward pins Ford’s hopes on innovation, which Mr. Ford says is exemplified by cars like the Escape Hybrid, the Fusion and the Mustang.
But most of Ford’s new cars are less distinctive. Embracing a trend started by Toyota in the mid-1990’s, Ford is rushing to bring out more crossover vehicles, like the Edge, an S.U.V. built on a standard automobile platform. Analysts say those vehicles are by nature utilitarian and likely to inspire little lust in buyers’ hearts.
“There is no evidence of a huge product offensive,” said Stefano Aversa, chief operating officer at Alix Partners, a firm that specializes in corporate restructuring. “I’ll be pleasantly surprised if I see 10 new products. I don’t see any of them coming yet.”
Ford also has to overcome a reputation for turning out merely serviceable products, said Brian Moody, a road test editor at Edmunds.com, a Web site that dispenses car-buying advice. Vanilla-flavored cars might work fine for Toyota, which honed its reputation for quality over decades, and a conservative approach might have been acceptable in an earlier era, when Detroit companies dominated the American market, he said. But with Detroit’s market share reaching all-time lows, Ford needs to exceed customers’ expectations in order to keep up with Japanese and Korean carmakers, which are increasingly attracting Ford’s loyal, largely middle-class customers.
“If the car isn’t good, if the truck isn’t good, people aren’t going to buy it just because it’s a Ford,” Mr. Moody said.
FORD needs to act quickly on its vow to innovate. Toyota blew by DaimlerChrysler this spring to claim the No. 3 spot in American auto sales. Next in Toyota’s sights is Ford. True innovation, as illustrated by vehicles like Toyota’s popular Prius, is an elusive goal in an industry that typically needs more than three years to bring its cars to life. That may be more time than Mr. Ford has — and he is battling a culture that still clings to some vestiges of its more prosperous past.
Insiders have often likened Ford’s middle management to a marshmallow: push on it and it dents; after a short while it just springs back into shape. To be sure, Ford managers have also had to endure a barrage of improvement efforts through the years, from the quality-focused teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming, to Six Sigma quality-control methodologies to globalization plans. Hoping to avoid the flavor-of-the-month trap, Mr. Ford says he is examining all aspects of the way Ford operates, “everything from small things like how we’re going to treat each other in meetings to very big things like what about the trappings of our job?”
Analysts say frills like Ford’s executive dining room send messages that the Way Forward plan, with its focus on doing more with less, is for the grunts only, while top executives, whose Glass House offices are reached by climbing a curved staircase behind a security guard, still enjoy creature comforts.
“There should be signals,” Mr. Aversa said. “When things go well, you can take your time and plan for the long term. But when things go rough, you have to execute and do things with a sense of urgency.”
Last week’s dividend cut may be one such signal, but whether the Way Forward is the plan and Mr. Ford the right executive to carry it out remain topics of debate among analysts. “Either you intensify this plan and look at the whole business model brutally or you get someone else to do the job,” Mr. Casesa said.
For his part, Mr. Ford said he heard the clock ticking, aware that his family’s legacy was in danger of slipping away with every passing second. “I’m impatient, too,” he said. “I have no patience for wasting time.”
Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt
Picasso
change is necessary, and it doesn't mean paycuts, it means doing things
more efficiently, building better quality, with the people they have.
They need to take some time and study the GE management style, and begin
to manage these people.
zwsd...@gmail.com
Picasso wrote:
> They need to take some time and study the GE management style, and begin
> to manage these people.
Ha, ha. Really, very humorous. This would be the same (Jack Welch)
management style that is now considered obsolete?
<http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/10/magazines/fortune/rules.fortune/index.htm>
I work at a company that absorbed Welch's "style" and let me tell you -
it's way overdue for replacement.
Mike Hunter
outscored many of so called highly touted import brands in recently
published consumer surveys. Lest we forget both GM and Ford outsell ANY of
the imports, as well.
mike hunt
"Picasso" <Pic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:F3sug.11134$pu3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Tom
Whitelightning
"Mike Hunter" <mike...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:2IednddCIsI...@ptd.net...
> Better quality? In whose opinion? Vehicles built by Ford and GM have
> outscored many of so called highly touted import brands in recently
> published consumer surveys. Lest we forget both GM and Ford outsell ANY
of
> the imports, as well.
>
>
> mike hunt
>
than anything made here? (very very deep sarcasm here)
Hell I have people I know tell me a Toyota made in Japan is a better car
than one made in in Tenn. I personally would like to buy them a one way
steerage class ticket on a slow freighter to Japan. I do believe the ad
people for Ford and GM need to get off their collective asses and start
putting some good advertising out there, its down right lame. I will give
Mitsubishi credit for some very slick advertising, even if it is one of the
biggest pieces shit on the road.
Whitelightning
Whitelightning
"lymee" <irish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eLtug.7103$gT3....@fe09.lga...
> Because GM cars are dull.
> They look dull.
> The colors are boring and the styling looks like they took 1970's/80's
> notchback cars like the Buick Regal, Monte Carlo etc and rounded off the
> corners. The insides still scream OLD FART CLUB (of which I am a proud
> member of at 46yo) even though the motors are starting to come back.
>
> What rocket scientist put the fire breathing V8 in a FWD car, the
> MonteCarlo?
Why not, lets see, Olds Tornado, Caddilac Eldarado, Coupe DeVille, STS,
Buick Rivera to
name a few. The Toronado set up was so bullet proof GMC used it in its RV
they offered in the 70's and early 80's that still has a cult following with
almost 75% of those sold still on the road.
> Even Dodge had the good sense to go RWD with it's Hemi's and although the
> styling doesn't appeal to everyone at least they took a chance.
> the interiors are very modern with a touch of retro and well done too.
Probably because of Mercedes owning them, Mercedes is stil rear wheel drive.
And the hemi is a marketing ploy to the inth degree, to compare what they
are offering
today to the 426 hemis of the late 60's and 70's is a joke.
>
> The Malibu, Cobalt and Impala are other snoozers except maybe for the
> Cobalt in SS trim which is nice but rough around the edges especially in
> the handling department.
I rather like the Monte Carlo, but the Impala misses the mark
>
> In contrast, the new Ford Mustang was a stroke of genious.
I will agree, with the exception of the rear quarter windows the car is
sharp,
me thinks it needs some chrome in the bumper areas though..
But the rest of the line up looks like they just stretched the designs.
The Ranger has a better profile than the Colorado
>
> Ford IMHO has one problem and it is the same problem as GM.
> They bought way too heavily into the super sized SUV market and
> now that gas prices are skyrocketing it is coming back to get them.
> Unlike GM though, Ford was smart enough to offer some hybrids and even
> though they kinda suck(very high repair costs) it is good for public
> relations and people are buying them.
They built what was selling, and the japs jumped on board as well, Honda and
Toyota both offering full size v-8 powered rigs now.
>
> I think the big three really have to do some serious market research, hire
> some talented designers with fresh ideas and look toward the future (like
> Japanese companies) instead of a quarterly bottom line.
They need better advertising.
Whitelightning
FanJet
> July 16, 2006
>
Bill Ford needs a product like Bill Gates:
Costs virtually nothing to make, distribute & sell with absolutely no
warranty whatever. You know it doesn't work correctly from day-one so you
get the government to OK that *and* you get the customers to pay *you* to
fix it - over and over and over again. When the customers get sick of that,
you paint it a different color and start all over.
During the worst period in Ford history (I'm sure that could be argued to
death), a single days output from one Ford plant would be worth more than 5
years of anything Microsoft has foisted on an its consumer base.
Funny world!
Jim Warman
doubt that it happens. At the same time, labour is busy trying to
"shortchange" management. It's no secret that the big cats get the fat
canaries... each of us only needs to look as far as our local/municipal/
federal governments.
At the same time, we regularly see employees trying to do as little as
possible while maintaining a paycheck. There ain't anyone right.... but the
pot is calling the kettle black.
Going out on a limb.... when I close my eyes and try to picture "Grover"...
I see someone taking an "unregulated" break from his telemarketting duties
(go ahead - call me at supper time) and plagiarizing a news article for no
apparent reason.
Bottom line - so f*cking what. I drive what I drive - not what Grover thinks
I should drive. Pardon me for being me....
Mike Hunter
any of the imports, that get 30 MPG or more. Many mistakenly believe they
need to buy an import to get decent fuel mileage. GM, Ford and Chrysler
even offers car with V8 that can get 25 MPG or more.
One of my friends owns a 2005 Pruis and a 2006 Milan. For the way he used
his vehicles the Prius is averaging 33 MPG, the Milan 30. The Pruis cost
him $26,000, the Milan $18,000. If he had another Milan, the $8,000
difference will buy all of the gas for the Milan for around six years ;)
mike hunt
"Whitelightning" <white.li...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:KLtug.2334$rT6.1712@trnddc03...
Mike Hunter
mike
"FanJet" <FanJ...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44ba7d24$0$3649$4d3e...@news.sover.net...
Mark Jones
> GM and Ford are finally advertising the fact they have more vehicles,
> than any of the imports, that get 30 MPG or more. Many mistakenly
> believe they need to buy an import to get decent fuel mileage. GM,
> Ford and Chrysler even offers car with V8 that can get 25 MPG or more.
My 1994 Corvette with the optional performance rear gears
gets 25 mpg, so getting 25 mpg from a car is really not that
much of a challenge for Ford and GM.
When my 2004 F-150 4x4 is paid off next fall, I intend to
trade it in on a new Ford truck. Probably an F-250. My F-150
has been flawless. It is the best vehicle I have ever owned.
aarcuda69062
"Mike Hunter" <mike...@mailcity.com> wrote:
> Can we assume you are stuck with a MAC? ;)
>
>
> mike
Only if he has WiFi.
My Names Nobody
"Tom" <tjctra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:p8tug.7097$gT3....@fe09.lga...
FanJet
> Can we assume you are stuck with a MAC? ;)
>
tarpit. They know they've been taken but they'll pay anything to make it
look like they haven't, just a hint that things work like the salesman said.
I do that for them. Or, more precisely, like Microsoft, to them.
Picasso
Its a good place to base a start. It is by no means perfect, but the
essentials of it are still studied. It was the right thing, the right
time for the company. Much of it can still be applied.
If you think his management is so hokey, lets see your ideas?
It is by NO MEANS Obsolete!
A little blurb on CNN.com is not going to set the pace, that's for sure.
Picasso
F150's are damn solid trucks. I wish they still made the light duty
f250. But anyway, the F150's are still good vehicles.
If i had the money, I would try a 250 or 350 diesel.
Picasso
The mustang GT is a well done piece. Best bang for your buck for sure,
if you are looking for good styling, good power, and a good daily drive.
I don't know why you would look any further, even if the camaro was
still around, it's styling looked like a riced out firebird from 1993,
and didn't even perform overly impressively. It would probally still be
overpriced even if it was there to compete...
lymee wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:05:36 -0400, Grover C. McCoury III wrote:
>
>> July 16, 2006
> Snip...
>
> Where I live there is a Ford dealer right next to a GM dealer and despite
> my having been a Chevy guy for a long time, I'm going to buy a Ford this
> time around.
> Mustang to be exact.
>
> Why?
>
> Because GM cars are dull.
> They look dull.
> The colors are boring and the styling looks like they took 1970's/80's
> notchback cars like the Buick Regal, Monte Carlo etc and rounded off the
> corners. The insides still scream OLD FART CLUB (of which I am a proud
> member of at 46yo) even though the motors are starting to come back.
>
> What rocket scientist put the fire breathing V8 in a FWD car, the
> MonteCarlo?
>
> Even Dodge had the good sense to go RWD with it's Hemi's and although the
> styling doesn't appeal to everyone at least they took a chance.
> the interiors are very modern with a touch of retro and well done too.
>
> The Malibu, Cobalt and Impala are other snoozers except maybe for the
> Cobalt in SS trim which is nice but rough around the edges especially in
> the handling department.
>
> In contrast, the new Ford Mustang was a stroke of genious.
> I just hope Ford doesn't screw it up with the rumored changes they are
> making next year.
>
> Ford IMHO has one problem and it is the same problem as GM.
> They bought way too heavily into the super sized SUV market and
> now that gas prices are skyrocketing it is coming back to get them.
> Unlike GM though, Ford was smart enough to offer some hybrids and even
> though they kinda suck(very high repair costs) it is good for public
> relations and people are buying them.
>
Picasso
call them a midsize pickup.
Picasso
I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them! hahaha
lymee wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:27:29 +0000, Picasso wrote:
>
>> What chages are they planning for the mustang?
>>
>> The mustang GT is a well done piece. Best bang for your buck for sure,
>> if you are looking for good styling, good power, and a good daily drive.
>> I don't know why you would look any further, even if the camaro was
>> still around, it's styling looked like a riced out firebird from 1993,
>> and didn't even perform overly impressively. It would probally still be
>> overpriced even if it was there to compete...
>
>
> I don't know.
> I read somewhere that every body panel is being reworked along with a new
> V6 motor.
> Might just be rumour.
> Might be too many beers while surfing the net :)
>
> Anyone??
>
>
zwsd...@gmail.com
Picasso wrote:
> Its a good place to base a start. It is by no means perfect, but the
It's like pulling a robber baron out of the pre-Depression era and
giving him the helm of a modern company. Business is evolving, and it
does NOT make sense to base your future on old formulas.
Management styles are like any other technology. Take as a very good
analogy black and white TV - it went through a period of being
state-of-the-art and expensive but sought-after, then affordable and
owned by everyone, and now it is virtually free ($9.95 will buy you a
B&W television set, brand new) but nobody wants it because it has been
superseded by superior products. Free-to-air TV signals still work on
an old TV but you're missing a lot. When digital comes in, B&W TV sets
will be completely worthless.
Welch's pontificatory writings are in the same spot as B&W TV. His
ideas are still backwards compatible with modern businesses - JUST. So
they have some use, but it's small and dwindling. It would be stupid to
set up a facility manufacturing CRTs with blue-white TV-grade phosphors
right now, and it would be equally stupid to "turn around" a business
into a known dead end like GE's methodologies. Even GE is changing.
Whitelightning
> long as the drives stay in the rear, and they keep the v8 ;P
>
> I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
> them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
> was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them! hahaha
>
find the "fastest"
production car. Of course the Corvette won hands down over all even after
Chevrolet made them put a roll cage in the car and locked out 6th gear on
the tranny, the Camaro IROC nudged out the Pontiac Firebird for 2 nd place,
and forth place went to the Buick Grand National, which beat the Firebird
for top end, but got beat bad in the 1/4 mile, but the big surprise was the
Dodge Omni GLH whooped the 5.0 Ford Mustang, not just on top end, but in the
1/4 mile as well.. A couple years later the Omni was gone, as was the Grand
National, but the big upset winners were both GM trucks, the Cyclone, and
the Typhoon, which almost beat the damn Corvette in the 1/4 mile.
Whitelightning
Whitelightning
"David M" <NOS...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:56Bug.20412$so3....@southeast.rr.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:56:42 +0000, Picasso rearranged some electrons to
> form:
>
> > long as the drives stay in the rear, and they keep the v8 ;P
> >
> > I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
> > them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
> > was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them!
hahaha
>
> It really runs pretty good, for a 6-cyl.
>
>
Imagine it with a super charger like the Cobalt SS.
Whitelightning
My Names Nobody
Light duty F-250's??? What year was that? Every year I'm familiar with
share axels, brakes and springs with the F-350. I do know Chevy made
half-ton based light duty 3/4 ton trucks, I'm not aware of a Ford light duty
F-250.
ranto...@mail.com
Mike Hunter wrote:
>Better quality? In whose opinion?
J.D. Powers, Consumer Reports, Popular Mechanics, Gelco Leasing,
dealers that sell both Japanese, American, and Chrysler brands, and
even the internal reports of Ford and GM.
>Lest we forget both GM and Ford outsell ANY of the imports, as well.
Irrelevant (quality != quantity) and misleading ( GM + Ford is bigger
than Toyota, but Toyota + Ford is bigger than GM, but so what?). GM is
also #1 in China, but again, so what? For a business with such large
economies of scale as the car industry, worldwide sales matter more,
and here GM will soon be overtaken, unless it merges with
Renault/Nissan. GM and Ford have got to bring out new best-in-class
vehicles, and they haven't been doing that much, GM perhaps not at
all.. Rick Wagoner and Bill Ford need to understand, "It's the
vehicles, stupid."
ranto...@mail.com
zwsd...@gmail.com wrote:
>Picasso wrote:
>>They need to take some time and study the GE management style, and begin
>>to manage these people.
>Ha, ha. Really, very humorous. This would be the same (Jack Welch)
>management style that is now considered obsolete?
>http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/10/magazines/fortune/rules.fortune/index.htm
>I work at a company that absorbed Welch's "style" and let me tell you -
>it's way overdue for replacement.
I wouldn't want GE-style management for any small, fast-growing company
that can't afford to have its innovation stifled, but if you have to
run a large, established firm that's not on the cutting edge, GE
management, of which Jack Welch was a product rather than a creator,
isn't bad, and it's probably why GE is the only remaining original
member of the Dow Jones Industrials. But Johnson & Johnson and 3M are
probably better-run large companies.
ranto...@mail.com
FanJet wrote:
>Bill Ford needs a product like Bill Gates:
>Costs virtually nothing to make, distribute & sell with absolutely no
>warranty whatever.
But Bill Ford runs an actual business and can't tax almost every car
made the way Bill Gates can essentially tax computers with Windows.
Bill Gates didn't create but just brought order to the PC business the
way the public highway system brought order to auto travel.
>During the worst period in Ford history (I'm sure that could be argued to
>death), a single days output from one Ford plant would be worth more than 5
>years of anything Microsoft has foisted on an its consumer base.
>Funny world!
Funny economics. People who worship capitalism as a religion should
realize that their god isn't just far from perfect but often outright
absurd.
Brent P
> They need to take some time and study the GE management style, and begin
> to manage these people.
Have you ever personally experienced the GE management style?
Here's how it works. Each year every employee is ranked. This is a
political process. It's not how well you do your job, how smart you are,
how much money you made or saved the corporation, but how well liked you
are and how high your salary is. The bottom 10% is subject to downsizing,
and usually is.
After a few years, those who fought for change and became disliked by
bosses for not supporting the status quo, those who were creative and
fought to try new politically risky solutions, those who had experience
and knowledge are all gone.
Sure, wall street and the executives love it when the engineering staff
has been reduced to fresh-outs and ass kissers. However, innovation,
creativity and institutional knowledge suffers. Nobody still working
there knows that doing such and such leads to fires once the cars are
out in the real world... 'little' things like that.
If Ford and GM want to survive they need to take the shackles off their
engineers, not find new ways to pound down the highest nails. (as per
the japanese saying) And that's what the GE method does, pounds down the
highest nails.
My Names Nobody
> long as the drives stay in the rear, and they keep the v8 ;P
>
> I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
> them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
> was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them! hahaha
If they did not sell the V-6 Mustang, the "secretary car" would have long
ago suffered the same fate as the camaro and charger...
It's a good thing some people like the low performance models...
Picasso
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:56:42 +0000, Picasso rearranged some electrons to
> form:
>
>>
>> I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
>> them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
>> was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them! hahaha
>
> It really runs pretty good, for a 6-cyl.
>
When someone adds, "for a six-cyl" at the end, I don't want to drive
it... I can already feel the power, and hear the motor grinding
away...........................
Picasso
> "Picasso" <Pic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_mAug.11405$pu3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> long as the drives stay in the rear, and they keep the v8 ;P
>>
>> I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
>> them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
>> was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them! hahaha
>
>
> If they did not sell the V-6 Mustang, the "secretary car" would have long
> ago suffered the same fate as the camaro and charger...
> It's a good thing some people like the low performance models...
The camaro too offered a V6, a very weak V6, but it wasthere
NOw if someone upgraded from a neon, or a cavelier, I could see why they
would think a v6 stang would work good.
John S.
Actually.... I don't have to imagine it... Vortech makes a nice
little kit with and without a charge cooler... I opted for the charge
cooler... My little 'ol V6 puts down 313RWHP/290RWTQ... and she's an
automatic (OMG an Auto V6! How can I even show my face! LOL!) so you're
looking at round 360HP at the crank.... runs 13.4's in 90 degree heat
and a 325 pound driver! LOL!
My Vorech info is at:
http://www.tammyandjohn.com/Mustang/Screaming/Mustang.htm#rescue
John S.
or upgrading from one of your beloved V8's from the mid-90's... LOL! I
lined up against some mid-90's GT's at the track... they were running a
blistering mid-16s! WOOHOO! A stock S197 V6 can turn low 15's! Couple
cheap mods and you can run 14.9... LOL!
This is not your Dad's rental V6... LOL!
Mike Hunter
another red since '99, I picked a new color, 'Alloy' as dark metallic grey,
and added the hood scope. I should have it in two weeks.
mike hunt
"Picasso" <Pic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3zug.11377$pu3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Mike Hunter
345 FP of torque. The limited production Cobra has the engine from the Ford
GT with a supercharger and 500 HP and 445 FP of torque from what I've heard.
The MSRP for the coupe is 40K, 45K for the convertible but dealers are
getting 5K to 10K over MSRP. Every Ford dealer gets one, Presidents Award
dealers get two.
mike hunt
"Whitelightning" <white.li...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:2YAug.5346$Ss2.5148@trnddc01...
Mike Hunter
Ford dealer, for the specifics, WBMA
mike hunt
"My Names Nobody" <nob...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:KJDug.3193$Lw.1022@trnddc07...
Mike Hunter
US? ;)
mike hunt
<ranto...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1153108528.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Whitelightning
"Mike Hunter" <mike...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:-JqcnfBtIZi...@ptd.net...
> Then how do you explain why the Camry is the number one selling car in the
> US? ;)
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
if its manufactured by any one but an American Corporation, it has to be
better, and they
believe it.
Whitelightning.
JohnR66
The Fusion and Mustang were ranked best in class by JD Powers. No other
American makes to be found.
John
NoOpt...@aol.com
> > Because GM cars are dull.
> > They look dull.
> > The colors are boring and the styling looks like they took 1970's/80's
> > notchback cars like the Buick Regal, Monte Carlo etc and rounded off the
> > corners. The insides still scream OLD FART CLUB (of which I am a proud
> > member of at 46yo) even though the motors are starting to come back.
> > What rocket scientist put the fire breathing V8 in a FWD car, the
> > MonteCarlo?
> Why not, lets see, Olds Tornado, Cadillac Eldarado, Coupe DeVille, STS,
> Buick Rivera to name a few. The Toronado set up was so bullet proof GMC used it in
> its RV they offered in the 70's and early 80's that still has a cult following with
> almost 75% of those sold still on the road.
"Bulletproof" or not, high horsepower FWD cars have torque steer
problems. And you must admit, given the choice most every performance
nut would opt for RWD over FWD.
> > Even Dodge had the good sense to go RWD with it's Hemi's and although the
> > styling doesn't appeal to everyone at least they took a chance.
> > the interiors are very modern with a touch of retro and well done too.
> Probably because of Mercedes owning them, Mercedes is still rear wheel drive.
> And the hemi is a marketing ploy to the inth degree, to compare what they
> are offering today to the 426 hemis of the late 60's and 70's is a joke.
1) The modern 6.1L Hemi is NET rated at what the old 7L Hemi was rated
in GROSS HP.
2) And a modern SRT Hemi car will walk any old Hemi car.
So the modern Hemi's performance isn't a joke.
===
Now let's see if re-using the Hemi name is a "marketing ploy".
===
Conclusions So Far
Unless there is something that has been under-/over-estimated or
overlooked, it seems that this new Hemi has evolved into something as
high-tech as the LS6 engine. If so, this means (from the street
performance enthusiast point of view) it is hot right out of the crate
(see output curves in Fig 1) and chock full of major power potential.
Its crowning feature is going to be the cylinder head, so let's take a
serious look at this all-important piece of hardware now.
Cylinder Head
The advantage of a hemi design of combustion chamber is that the valves
(and most importantly the intake valve) are always moving away from the
shrouding effect of the cylinder walls (Fig 2) as they lift off the
seats. However, the new hemi is not actually a true hemi as per its
426-inch predecessor. The hemi style of combustion chamber was put to
good use during WWII when the output of supercharged aero engines could
basically decide the fate of nations. For a two-valve combustion
chamber, the hemi layout not only allows the largest valves to be
accommodated but also to have the highest flow efficiency. The downside
of a true Hemi configuration is that it does not respond well to a high
compression ratio that inevitably requires a combustion-inhibiting,
high-domed piston. For an engine with a typical bore/stroke ratio, this
means it works great with a supercharger and CRs less than 8.5:1, but
not as a normally-aspirated unit with 10:1 or more. To get around this
problem the new Hemi has the sides of the true hemi form filled in.
With the two spark plugs it is equipped with, this allows all the
advantages of a true hemi, including blower capability, along with the
ability, if required, to successful utilize high compression ratios.
====
Seems there was a valid reason to slightly modify the old Hemi design.
The new Hemi needed more compression and the old Hemi design wouldn't
cut the mustand.
=====
Flow Capability
We can see that Chrysler's engineers were targeting the best two-valve
head possible. There are two important questions that need to be asked
here: How well did they succeed for the head in stock form and, since
no aftermarket heads are available, what is its porting potential? The
graph, Fig 3, gives the answers here and you are going to like them.
First, the intake port. The stock port with its 2-inch valve flowed a
whopping 270 cfm at only .600-inch lift. It hit the peak flow figures,
which are produced at .700-inch lift on a stock LS6, at only about 375
thousandths lift. This is good news but there is a lot more. Peak
figures are not the whole story. Good mid-range figures are also
important. The new Hemi did extremely well here. At 250 thousandths
lift, the stock head was nearer a $10,000 Winston (Nextel) Cup head
than it was to even a good modified parallel-valve head.
A check on the intake port velocity (Fig 4) showed the intake to be a
super high-speed port with valve-to-port areas very similar to what is
seen in Formula One. Velocity probing showed 90 percent of the port
flows at a velocity greater than 90 percent of maximum. This is far
better than a typical 23-degree performance head for a small-block
Chevy or, for that matter, the LS6.
The exhaust port showed the same high-function trend by hitting 161 cfm
at 600 thousandths lift through its 1.55-inch valve. It also had a far
better than average port velocity and velocity distribution (Fig 5).
We spent a day and a half on the flow bench in an effort to find out
what this head does or does not like in the way of port mods. We are
sure there is much still to come, especially with some bigger valves,
but we did find what it took to produce, at 600 thousandths lift, some
302 cfm on the intake and 195 cfm on the exhaust. As the nearby photos
show the work to achieve this proved simple. In essence, the porting
involves little more than just tidying up what Chrysler's engineers
provided in the first place (great job guys).
Final Conclusions
The bottom line here we think is that even in today's world, the Hemi,
a year after its introduction, has got more going for it as a hot rod
motor than perhaps the small-block Chevy did in 1956. Even with the
limitations on valve lift brought about by the stock rocker, the
cylinder head has more than enough flow potential to clear the 600-hp
barrier and probably do it (relatively speaking) with ease.
====
"...clear 600-hp barrier and do it with relative ease" certainly sounds
like a no-joke engine.
====
So will it be a success? This depends on the factory as much as
anything. First, they must put it in vehicles that inspire hot rodders
to do something with them. The Hemi truck is a great start here as the
sport truck market is big. Introducing a viable pony car to compete
with the Mustang would probably clinch the deal in that department. But
it will still need a little more than just the right vehicles. The
factory will have to support this engine in aftermarket parts. This
appears to be happening but as far as we are concerned, it can't happen
fast enough. We're avid Chevy fans and have owned many Chevy vehicles
over the years, but this 5.7 Hemi has totally convinced us our next
truck just has to be a Hemi-powered Dodge.
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0403phr_chrysler_hemi_57_liter_345ci_engine_review/
====
Hmmm... avid Chevy fans admitting the new Hemi outguns their brand's
best. Not too shabby for a "marketing ploy" and a joke compared to
old, huh?
Patrick
Mike Hunter
buy far more from GM and Ford than any import brand.
mike hunt
"JohnR66" <nos...@att.net> wrote in message
news:pIUug.409895$Fs1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Mike Hunter
will 'walk away' from any old Hemi. LOL
mike hunt
<NoOpt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1153188876.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
ranto...@mail.com
Mike Hunter wrote:
><ranto...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:1153108528.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>Lest we forget both GM and Ford outsell ANY of the imports, as well.
>>Irrelevant (quality != quantity) and misleading ( GM + Ford is bigger
>>than Toyota, but Toyota + Ford is bigger than GM, but so what?). GM is
>>also #1 in China, but again, so what?
>Then how do you explain why the Camry is the number one selling
>car in the US? ;)
I doubt it's all due to quality but also because of performance,
comfort, and resale value. What do you think is the reason?
Mike Hunter
their money. The ONLY Toyota that is the number one seller, in its class is
the Camry, however. Performance? That's funny, 8 out of 10 Camrys sold in
the US are 4cy and way underpowered compared to those of its competitors
that offer V6s for much less money.
mike hunt
<ranto...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1153208496.1...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
mike
"lymee" <irish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s17vg.51$OQ2...@fe08.lga...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:07:12 -0400, Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> Most buyers buy what they buy because the believe that is the best buy
>> for
>> their money. The ONLY Toyota that is the number one seller, in its class
>> is
>> the Camry, however. Performance? That's funny, 8 out of 10 Camrys sold
>> in
>> the US are 4cy and way underpowered compared to those of its competitors
>> that offer V6s for much less money.
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> I've had both the 4 and the V6 as rentals and their is a major difference
> in power between the two motors.
> The 4 is a real slug.
> The V6 is a lot better.
>
> However, I still think the high end Corolla model is much more fun to
> drive than the Camry.
Ken Finney
> ANYTHING is more fun to drive than a 4 cy Camry. ;)
>
I have a diesel Rabbit...
My Names Nobody
> Most buyers buy what they buy because the believe that is the best buy for
> their money. The ONLY Toyota that is the number one seller, in its class
> is the Camry, however. Performance? That's funny, 8 out of 10 Camrys
> sold in the US are 4cy and way underpowered compared to those of its
> competitors that offer V6s for much less money.
>
> mike hunt
Kinda like most Mustangs sold huh? LOL
NoOpt...@aol.com
> If you own a new hemi, if I were you, I would not bet your title that you
> will 'walk away' from any old Hemi. LOL
Don't laugh. Find me an original road test where a normal production
Hemi car posts a trap speed of 109 mph. You don't have to bother
looking because you won't find any. 105 is it, with most posting trap
speeds closer to 100. And if you've been a subscriber to Hemmings
Muscle Machines magazine you'll have noted a few times where they've
stated the old Hemi cars aren't as fast as the new SRT Hemi cars, or
more like not even close to as fast.
Me... I'd bet the farm on the a new SRT Hemi...
Patrick
Mark Jones
> However, the Mustang, even the V6 is simply more fun to drive.
> It really is.
> I dunno why, I really don't but IMHO it is a more fun ride.
> I think it might be because the Dodge feels *heavy*...
The Dodge is heavy. The Charger is about 4200 pounds.
It is slower than my 1994 Corvette, even though the new
Dodge has about 75 more horsepower.
Mike Hunter
"My Names Nobody" <nob...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:pccvg.3334$us.2493@trnddc04...
Mike Hunter
Domestics do not generally wind up the engines, to produce higher HP figures
for advertising purposed, as do the Japanese. Thus their engines develop
more torque at the proper RPMs, and that show up in much better performance.
I also will result in better real world fuel economy if one lives in hilly
or mountainous areas of the country
"lymee" <irish...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:R2dvg.372$MU1...@fe11.lga...
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:16:05 +0000, My Names Nobody wrote:
>
>>
>> Kinda like most Mustangs sold huh? LOL
>
> Not really comparable.
> FWIW the base cars usually are the best sellers, mostly due to rental
> companies getting them.
>
> The V6 Mustang (2005+) is quite fast, has a decent
> exhaust sound and is a lot of fun to drive especially a ragtop model.
>
> The GT adds on top of that, but it's really not *THAT* much of a
> difference in everyday driving for average people.
>
> Of course the enthusiasts and Mustang nuts like ME appreciate the
> difference.
> But average Joe using it to commute to work?
> Nahhhh...
>
> Some say the V6 actually feels better handling the corkscrew turns because
> the nose is lighter by about 150lbs or so.
>
> The V6 and 4 cyl Camrys are like night and day just like the V6 and 4
> cyl Mazda 626 were, in their day.
>
> I have had both versions of the Mazda and Camry as rentals for a week or
> more and IMHO it's a major difference in driveablity.
>
> I actually thought there was something wrong with the 4 cyl Camry I
> rented.
> It was that slow and even worse throttle response was sluggish.
>
> Ford was real smart offering a good performance V6 in the entry model
> because most people will never be able to appreciate the extra the GT
> offers.
>
> Their wallet will appreciate the lower insurance costs however :)
>
> Seems Pontiac and Saturn have done the same with the Sky/Solstice.
>
> I think Dodge slipped a little offering that V6 in the Hemi models.
> Then again Dodge was selling a 2.x liter 4 banger for Caravans :(
>
> Big mistake IMHO.
>
My Names Nobody
2007 Camry, V6 3.5-liter high-output V6, 268-horsepower at 6200 rpm, 248
lb-ft of torque at 4700 rpm
2007 Ford Mustang, V6 standard 4.0-liter, V6, 210-horsepower at 5,250 rpm,
240 lb-ft of torque at 3500 rpm
Before you get too excited about the power being at higher RPMs, have a
look at the Mustangs V-8 numbers...
2007 Ford Mustang, V8 4.6-liter, V8, 300-horsepower at 5,750 rpm, 320 lb-ft
of torque at 4,500 rpm
I can see all the Camry doors all over the shoulders of the roads now,
NOT...
"Mike Hunter" <mike...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:GsqcnVaqHrc...@ptd.net...
Mike Hunter
mike hunt
<NoOpt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1153275482.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
mike hunt
"Mark Jones" <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Zqpvg.279$gF6...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Mike Hunter
GT is only running a 1,900 RPMs at 70 MPH. 2,200 at 80 MPH The Toyota
needs to be at nearly 3000 RPMs to attain 70 MPH At 3,000 the Mustang
would be doing 105.
My 2007 will be in by early August, bring your title and your Toyota. I
could use a car for one of my grand daughters ;)
mike hunt
"My Names Nobody" <nob...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:NQvvg.12568$k31.12257@trnddc06...
Mark Jones
Same difference. The Dodge has about 75 more torque and
it still isn't enough because of the extreme weight. I was really
surprised to see that it weighed so much. That is a little more
than the weight of the huge Chevy Impalas from the early 70's.
NoOpt...@aol.com
> Apples to oranges. How about a Barracuda with an old hemi? ;)
Mike,
I don't know why you think it's apples to oranges.
Anyways, the old hemi 'Cudas were heavy cars -- 3800+ pounds. (The
'68-'70 Chargers were lighter, if only by a bit.) So they had about
the same amount of body mass to move as the new Hemi does.
Patrick
Mike Hunter
believe LOL
mike hunt
<NoOpt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1153360309....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Whitelightning
> I can only assume you never owned one of those car if that is what you
> believe LOL
>
>
> mike hunt
Obviously he never drove one. There is a hell of a difference between 350
cid, and 426 cid.
Ahh those were the days,Chrysler's 426 hemi's, Ford's 429 cobra jet ala 1970
Torino, and Chevy's '63 409 cid, and the later 427 cid engines, and last but
not least, the '70 Buick StageI with the 455 cid, 510 ft pounds of torque,
at 2,600 rpm.
Whitelightning
My Names Nobody
> Thanks for proving my point, about the importance of torque to HP! A
> 2007 GT is only running a 1,900 RPMs at 70 MPH. 2,200 at 80 MPH The
> Toyota needs to be at nearly 3000 RPMs to attain 70 MPH At 3,000 the
> Mustang
LMAO, Where are you getting the shit? IN WHICH GEAR??? The only way the
2007 V-6 Camry spins 3000 RPM at 70 miles per hour is if you leave it in 3rd
and don't use the top two gears.
The last (190 HP) Toyota I drove idled along at 75 MPH in overdrive at 1800
RPM...
> would be doing 105.
>
LOL
Ah, you are confusing torque curves with gear ratios, you better check your
math...
Speed is a result of crank RPM and transmission/final gear ratio, not the
engines torque curve. Torque may effect how quickly you get to that speed,
but has absolutely nothing to do with the engine RPM and final drive
speed...
You can go 70 MPH with many cars with well under half the torque and
horsepower, and the RPM is dictated by gear ratio, NOT Torque curve.
Even if torque did play a roll ( if we were talking about a whole lot less
power, running out of torque could come into play) in the RPM-in and the
resulting final RPM-out travel speed equation, rather than gear ratio, my
posting of the Mustangs and Toyotas numbers would have still done absolutely
nothing toward "proving your point"... Doh.
I did prove that you were talking out your ass when you quiped off "A V6
Mustang will blow the doors off a Camry with EITHER engine LOL". That
is just not true.
> My 2007 will be in by early August, bring your title and your Toyota.
LMFAO
I don't have one, but I would rent one just to show you the error of your
ways...
John S.
it to the Mustang GT!
Your beloved 2007 Camry has an MSRP of $24,300 while the Mustang V6
list for only $19,100! MSRP on a Mustang GT is $25,100 (some places
actually sell them for that... LOL). So for an extra $800 you can get
a 300HP Mustang GT! LOL!
Also your Camry is only available in an automatic... I'm guessing it s
a smooth, slow shifting automatic at that... While the Mustang is
avaible in a manual so it will have less power loss.. (Have you seen
that new commerical for the car where you don't even feel it shift?
What's up with that??? LOL!)
On the subject of torque... You feel torque and talk about
horsepower... Torque wins races! Both cars have about the same torque
but the Mustang V6 makes peak earlier... Now I'm very familar with the
torque curves on the Mustang but not on the Camry. I can tell you the
torque curve on the Mustang V6 is really good. Torque comes on early
and stays nice and flat. I will have to see if I can find a Camry
dynosheet... But I doubt will be as good as the Mustang's. The 4.0L
is a torquey little motor! 2 stock automatics would probably be a close
race... but I think a stock manual Mustang is going to beat the
Camry...
But then again the Camry is $5000 more than the Mustang V6! For $5000
you can add F/I to the Mustang and have some serious FUN! LOL! (and
please don't whine to me about voiding my warranty... LOL)
And of course... dont' forget the "gawk" factor! I have never owned a
car that gets "gawked" at as much and my 05 Stang... There will always
be cars out there that are FASTER than The Mistress, but not many that
are better looking! LOL!
Eisboch
Those of us old enough to remember such stuff recall:
The 426 hemi was built to compete against the Ford and Chevy 427 engines in
stock car races of the mid-60s. In order to qualify as a "stock" engine, a
minimum of 500 had to be produced and installed in cars available to the
public at dealerships. At the time, the Fed limited stock engine horsepower
ratings to 425 hp, thus the 425 hp rating of the 426 hemi.
The problem was (or not really a problem) that many people that bought the
original hemi from a dealership and put the car on a dyno were surprised and
delighted that they actually produced as much as 550 hp as delivered.
It also didn't take a lot of money or mods to tune these beasts up to around
600 hp.
BTW .... regarding the weight questions on the new Charger versus the old
.... I have a '69 Charger R/T (440 not 426). Weight is 3,636 lbs.
Eisboch
Mike Hunter
those speeds, particularly on a steep grade. ;)
mike hunt
"My Names Nobody" <nob...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1pFvg.8081$Ss2.2128@trnddc01...
C. E. White
"Carlton" <carl1029R...@nope.edu> wrote in message
news:zwOvg.12$GS...@fe09.lga...
> BTW the transmission you don't feel shift is called the CVT transmission.
> Not sure if Toyota has it, but the Ford Freestyle does.
>
> It will drive you CRAZY, trust me.......
I love the Freestyle CVT. It is my second car with a CVT (actually it is my
Mother's car, but I've driven it more than her). My first CVT was in a
Saturn and although it gave superior performance to the 5 speed manual, it
had ,<hmmm> problems - especially when abused by a 16 year old. Last week I
drove the Freestyle to Baltimore (310 mile one way trip up I-95). I was
extremely pleased with the performance. The fuel economy was good (not as
good as a Sable on a similar trip, but still good - around 25 mpg mostly
going 75+ mpg). I hardly noticed the way the transmission performed at all.
Very smooth at all times. Lots of passenger and luggage room. Great A/C. My
only complaint was the standard radio - wish it would play MP3s.
Ed
Blue Mesteno
"John S." <fish...@netscape.net> wrote
> On the subject of torque... You feel torque and talk about
> horsepower... Torque wins races!
No offense, but if it was about torque, then we'd all drive John Deere
tractors. It's not all about torque. The John Deere 6135 produces 600hp at
2100rpm and 1881 lb/ft of torque at a piddling 1600 rpm. 1/4 mile speed???
60 seconds??
--
Scott W.
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
Mike Hunter
starting out or climbing a grade, with a vehicle equipped with a CVT, one
needs to floor the throttle to get to the lowest gear to do the job, then
let up when you get to the speed you want to attain.. Otherwise you are
starting, or climbing, in the higher ratios of the tranny, and in the wrong
part of the torque curve
mike hunt
"Carlton" <carl1029R...@nope.edu> wrote in message
news:zwOvg.12$GS...@fe09.lga...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:47:54 -0700, John S. wrote:
>
> BTW the transmission you don't feel shift is called the CVT transmission.
> Not sure if Toyota has it, but the Ford Freestyle does. (and the 500)
Mike Hunter
what keep you going on the grades. Your chose is speed versus quick, even a
4cy can go 100 MPH, it takes torque at the right speed to go quickly and
keep up to the speed limit on the long grades. That is why the 500 does so
well with only 203 HP, the CVT keeps the tranny on the top of the torque
curve and 203 is enough HP to go over 100 MPH if you wish.
mike hunt
"Blue Mesteno" <69ta_m...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:UuOdnV9P4sHjWCLZ...@comcast.com...
John S.
no offense taken... but... I didn't say it was ALL about torque... I
think people just get hung up on HP without looking at the torque
numbers... For a 1/4 mile Torque is a very important factor...
C. E. White
> To each his own :)
> I drove the 2006 Freestyle and while I liked the SUV I didn't like the CVT
> at all. I thought it seemed to be lugging down the engine. IOW it made the
> car feel slow. I agree that it was very smooth though and looking at the
> tach I couldn't feel any changes other than the sluggishness.
> Maybe the engine just needs more power? I don't really know.
Well you would be wrong. I think you are confusing noise and thrashing about
with power. The Freestyle is as fast or faster than any of it's six cylinder
competitors (Pacifica, Avalon, 6 cylinder 300, 6 cylinder Magnum). BTW, I
think calling the Freestyle an SUV is a misnomer (even if Ford claims it is
one). It is nothing more or less than a Five Hundred Station Wagon. It is
said that calling something a station wagon is now a bad thing.
> The reason I said it drove me crazy is because I like to know where I am
> as far as gear/torque/rpm etc because once you learn the car you can get
> the most performance out of it.
> With the CVT, there it's just *there* and that's it.
> Kinda felt weird to me.
Just floor it! The engine management system handles matching the engine
speed to the gear ratio to achieve the maximum speed. Even my Vue handled
that well. The CVT Vue was significantly faster to 60 than the 5 speed
manual Vue with the same engine (or the current models with a conventional
automatic). You just have to get over the idea that you have to feel shifts.
Ed
My Names Nobody
I didn't pit a Toyota Camry against the V-6 Mustang, Mike Hunter was the one
who erroneously quipped off "A V6 Mustang will blow the doors off a Camry
with EITHER engine LOL".
That small distinction kinda makes the rest of your comparisons somewhat
irrelevant here...
Keep in mind I don't own or like the Toyota Camry, I speak up only to
disprove utter bullshit.
BTW:
The last Camry I drove was a 1999 190HP V-6 5 speed manual, and it was no
slouch.
What kind of power was the V-6 Mustang cranking out in 1999?
"John S." <fish...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1153392474.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
My Names Nobody
> Ya right. See what happens when you tramp on the throttle, in each, at
> those speeds, particularly on a steep grade. ;)
>
>
So Mike, are you now back peddling away from your fictitious speed to RPM
comparison crap you posted?
Do you now see the error of you ways, forgetting about gear ratios?
My Names Nobody
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:58:06 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I love the Freestyle CVT. It is my second car with a CVT (actually it is
>> my
>> Mother's car, but I've driven it more than her). My first CVT was in a
>> Saturn and although it gave superior performance to the 5 speed manual,
>> it
>> had ,<hmmm> problems - especially when abused by a 16 year old. Last week
>> I
>> drove the Freestyle to Baltimore (310 mile one way trip up I-95). I was
>> extremely pleased with the performance. The fuel economy was good (not as
>> good as a Sable on a similar trip, but still good - around 25 mpg mostly
>> going 75+ mpg). I hardly noticed the way the transmission performed at
>> all.
>> Very smooth at all times. Lots of passenger and luggage room. Great A/C.
>> My
>> only complaint was the standard radio - wish it would play MP3s.
>>
>> Ed
>
>
> I drove the 2006 Freestyle and while I liked the SUV I didn't like the CVT
> at all. I thought it seemed to be lugging down the engine. IOW it made the
> car feel slow. I agree that it was very smooth though and looking at the
> tach I couldn't feel any changes other than the sluggishness.
> Maybe the engine just needs more power? I don't really know.
>
> as far as gear/torque/rpm etc because once you learn the car you can get
> the most performance out of it.
> With the CVT, there it's just *there* and that's it.
> Kinda felt weird to me.
Where you are, is ALWAYS in the sweet spot of your power curve. That is why
the heaver all wheel drive CVT version of the Ford 500 is quicker than its
lighter front wheel drive automatic transaxle version Ford 500....
???
My Names Nobody
But no more important than gear ratio...
My Names Nobody
> Todays Mustang GT has the 4.6V8 is a better engine than the 302, 300 HP
> and 345 FP of torque. The limited production Cobra has the engine from
> the Ford GT with a supercharger and 500 HP and 445 FP of torque from what
> I've heard.
It has specifically not been called a "Cobra" by Ford, it is titled the
Shelby GT500. It does not use the GT engine. It is a cast iron 5.4 block
(the GT uses an aluminum block) with aluminum heads from the GT.
> The MSRP for the coupe is 40K, 45K for the convertible but dealers are
> getting 5K to 10K over MSRP. Every Ford dealer gets one, Presidents Award
> dealers get two.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
>
> "Whitelightning" <white.li...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:2YAug.5346$Ss2.5148@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Picasso" <Pic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:_mAug.11405$pu3.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>> long as the drives stay in the rear, and they keep the v8 ;P
>>>
>>> I really wish they wouldnt even PUT the v6 in them. it kindda ruins
>>> them... like the fox stangs 4 banger, what a gutless piece of junk that
>>> was... 2.3L Wasn't it? the ford tempo's could walk all over them!
>>> hahaha
>>>
>> Careful now, lol. In 1985 one of the performance mags did a head to head
>> to
>> find the "fastest"
>> production car. Of course the Corvette won hands down over all even
>> after
>> Chevrolet made them put a roll cage in the car and locked out 6th gear on
>> the tranny, the Camaro IROC nudged out the Pontiac Firebird for 2 nd
>> place,
>> and forth place went to the Buick Grand National, which beat the Firebird
>> for top end, but got beat bad in the 1/4 mile, but the big surprise was
>> the
>> Dodge Omni GLH whooped the 5.0 Ford Mustang, not just on top end, but in
>> the
>> 1/4 mile as well.. A couple years later the Omni was gone, as was the
>> Grand
>> National, but the big upset winners were both GM trucks, the Cyclone, and
>> the Typhoon, which almost beat the damn Corvette in the 1/4 mile.
>>
>> Whitelightning
>>
>>
>
>
My Names Nobody
"Mike Hunter" <mike...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:B5ucnfAb3pe...@ptd.net...
> Todays Mustang GT has the 4.6V8 is a better engine than the 302, 300 HP
> and 345 FP of torque. The limited production Cobra has the engine from
> the Ford GT with a supercharger and 500 HP and 445 FP of torque from what
> I've heard.
2007 FORD SHELBY GT500 OFFICIALLY RATED AT 500 HORSEPOWER
Horsepower
500 hp @ 6,000 rpm (SAE Certified)
Torque
480 lb.-ft. @ 4,500 rpm (SAE Certified)
http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=23017
Jeff
(...)
>> The reason I said it drove me crazy is because I like to know where I am
>> as far as gear/torque/rpm etc because once you learn the car you can get
>> the most performance out of it.
>> With the CVT, there it's just *there* and that's it.
>> Kinda felt weird to me.
>
> Where you are, is ALWAYS in the sweet spot of your power curve. That is
> why the heaver all wheel drive CVT version of the Ford 500 is quicker than
> its lighter front wheel drive automatic transaxle version Ford 500....
Actually, it depends.
If you are accelearating fast, you are at the sweet part of the power curve.
And as you go faster, the effective gear ratio changes automatically to keep
you there.
When you are cruising down the highway, you are at the sweet part of the
economy curve.
This provides perforance and economy.
When I went to the NYC Auto Show, they had a model that showed how it
worked. Quite simple, really. And, when they work right, really cool.
Jeff
>
> ???
>
>
Mark Jones
superchargers and turbochargers, and the electronics
systems that allow maximum spark advance to be used
because of the knock sensors. Quite simply, the stock
autos from the late 60's and early 70's were not producing
as much power as these new cars.
Magazine test data that compares the old and new cars
has repeatedly shown that the old cars were not actually
as fast as many people think.
Jeff
"David M" <NOS...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4MUvg.20741$so3....@southeast.rr.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:20:42 -0400, Mike Hunter rearranged some electrons
> to form:
>
>> The best definition is HP gets one speed, Torque get one going quickly
>> and
>> what keep you going on the grades. Your chose is speed versus quick,
>> even a
>> 4cy can go 100 MPH, it takes torque at the right speed to go quickly and
>> keep up to the speed limit on the long grades. That is why the 500 does
>> so
>> well with only 203 HP, the CVT keeps the tranny on the top of the torque
>> curve and 203 is enough HP to go over 100 MPH if you wish.
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> applied through a distance per unit time.
>
> force x distance / time. 1HP = 33,000 ft-lbs of work per minute.
>
> Torque is force applied about a pivot.
> 100 pounds around a 1-ft radius is 100 lb-ft. 50 pounds around a
> 2 ft radius is ALSO 100 lb-ft.
What's your point?
Torque is analagous to force. In fact, it is rotational force.
And Horsepower = Torque (in ft-lbs) x angular speed (in RPMs) / 5252.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
Jeff
>>
>>
>> "Blue Mesteno" <69ta_m...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:UuOdnV9P4sHjWCLZ...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "John S." <fish...@netscape.net> wrote
>>>> On the subject of torque... You feel torque and talk about
>>>> horsepower... Torque wins races!
>>>
>>> No offense, but if it was about torque, then we'd all drive John Deere
>>> tractors. It's not all about torque. The John Deere 6135 produces 600hp
>>> at
>>> 2100rpm and 1881 lb/ft of torque at a piddling 1600 rpm. 1/4 mile
>>> speed???
>>> 60 seconds??
>>> --
>>> Scott W.
>>> '68 Ranchero 500 302
>>> '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
>>> ThunderSnake #57
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
>>>
>
> --
> David M (dmacchiarolo)
> http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
> T/S 53
> sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 21:30 1 user
>
Jeff
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:57:52 +0000, David M wrote:
>
>>
>> Horsepower (or any unit of power) is a force
>> applied through a distance per unit time.
>>
>> force x distance / time. 1HP = 33,000 ft-lbs of work per minute.
>>
>> Torque is force applied about a pivot.
>> 100 pounds around a 1-ft radius is 100 lb-ft. 50 pounds around a
>> 2 ft radius is ALSO 100 lb-ft.
>
> That one gave me fits in Physics class....
>
> Thank goodness for my HP 41CV Calculator....
I have an HP 11C. Great calculator.
But I am not an old fart (although my nephew farts so much that if you
hooked his butt up to a tank, he could supply half the natural gas needs of
a small town).
Jeff
> (now you know I am an old fart!!!)
>
>
Jeff
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:44:09 +0000, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>> I have an HP 11C. Great calculator.
>
>
>> But I am not an old fart (although my nephew farts so much that if you
>> hooked his butt up to a tank, he could supply half the natural gas needs
>> of
>> a small town).
>
> He used to eat the worst food, like Indian food, White Castle and some
> seafood thing his wife made. Boolabase (Sp?) or something like that.
>
> He couldn't power a small town though because the amount of alcohol going
> into him was greater, energy wise, than the methane produced.
> A very inefficient machine his bowels were :)
Have you ever heard the word "oversharing?"
That is more than I wanted to know.
Jeff
>
>> Jeff
>
>
Whitelightning
"Mark Jones" <noe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:EkUvg.2512$157....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Whitelightning wrote:
> Displacement differences are made up by fuel injection,
> superchargers and turbochargers, and the electronics
> systems that allow maximum spark advance to be used
> because of the knock sensors. Quite simply, the stock
> autos from the late 60's and early 70's were not producing
> as much power as these new cars.
>
> Magazine test data that compares the old and new cars
> has repeatedly shown that the old cars were not actually
> as fast as many people think.
>
and a set of slapper bars on it and pull the front wheels off the ground?
The 70 cuda's and challengers would do just that. with the 426 hemi ,
dual four barrels and four speed tranny. Stock off the show room floor
turn 1/4 miles in the low 13's at 104-113 mph . Car and Driver tested
the 2005 300 with the 5.7 and turned consistent 14.4 1/4 miles times,
which is not a shabby time by any means, but it aint a low 13 ether, and
the 2004 Pontiac GTO beats it at 13.3, with a 4.8 , again as tested by C&D.
The hemi is a good engine, but dodge is pushing it like its a 426, and it
aint,
and many buying it don't know no better any ways.
Whitelightning
Mark Jones
The tests that I saw showed the Dodge SRT-8 Hemis
turning the 1/4 mile in 13.4 sec @ 105 mph.
That is done with the tires that were on the vehicle
when it left the dealer.
The SRT-8 is more powerful than just a regular Hemi equipped
vehicle.
Ed White
Carlton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:29:55 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> > Well you would be wrong. I think you are confusing noise and thrashing
> > about with power.
>
> saying.
It is a perception problem. People (even "professional" reviewers) ae
used to getting jerked around by the transmission during hard
acceleration. When they aren't, they assume the vehicle is slow. The
Freestyle is not going to outrun any hemi 300's, but it is certainly
not slow compared to other vehicles in it's class.
Here is alist of vehicles and a scrambled list of 0-60 times (from
Consumer reports) -
Match them up (answers below)
A - 2005 Saturn Relay 3 minivan, 3.5-liter V6, 4-speed automatic
B - 2004 Pacifica AWD, 3.5-liter V6, 4-speed automatic
C - 2005 Magnum SXT wagon, 3.5-liter V6, 4-speed automatic
D - 2005 Freestyle SEL 4-door SUV AWD, 3.0-liter V6, CVT
E - 2005 Jeep Laredo 4-door SUV 4WD, 4.7-liter V8, 5-speed automatic
F - 2004 Lexus 4-door SUV AWD, 3.3-liter V6, 5-speed automatic
1 - 8.8 sec
2 - 8.8 sec
3 - 9.7 sec
4 - 10.2 sec
5 - 8.8 sec
6 - 9.1 sec
Here are the answers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A - 4
B - 3
C - 2
D - 6
E - 1
F - 5
The Freestyle is in the middle of the pack, significantly faster than
the Relay, slightly faster than the Pacfica, and slightly slower than
the Magnum, Lexus RX, and Laradeo (0.3 sec - could you ever detect that
without electronic timing gear?).. However, the Freestyle has
significantly more interior room than all of them except the relay. So
I say that peopel that claim the Freestlye is slow or under powered are
ignoring facts. They are just missing the jerking around associated
with normal automatics.
Ed
Mike Hunter
is what get you going and keep you going on the grades. That is one reason
one sees big rigs passing 4 cy Camrys on the mountain grades ;)
mike hunt
"David M" <NOS...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4MUvg.20741$so3....@southeast.rr.com...
>> The best definition is HP gets one speed, Torque get one going quickly
>> and
>> what keep you going on the grades. Your chose is speed versus quick,
>> even a
>> 4cy can go 100 MPH, it takes torque at the right speed to go quickly and
>> keep up to the speed limit on the long grades. That is why the 500 does
>> so
>> well with only 203 HP, the CVT keeps the tranny on the top of the torque
>> curve and 203 is enough HP to go over 100 MPH if you wish.
>>
>> mike hunt
>
Mike Hunter
old days. Cubic inches and torque was the name of the game LOL
mike hunt
"Whitelightning" <white.li...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jXWvg.7357$Lw.4007@trnddc07...