Horrible ford stories

[Motorsport-SVX]

Originally posted by Shadow248
I HATE MUSTANGS. I have one rhetorical question for you...
why is it that for 40 years the mustang has been trying to catch the camaro and never could...but now that the camaro is gone, they finally build a cobra that could run with a camaro SS? It would have been so great to see that 390hp cobra to take on the 345hp T/A...now that would have been a worthy contender. But why only now?! THAT'S why ford is falling fast as a company, they don't think on their feet.


Kelli dear, why does a sweet, beautiful girl like you have to take an interest in sub-standard cars like a cobra? Stick with the SVX if nothing else. Ford is like the titanic right now. No one wants to be on that ship.

I still think the Cobra would take an EVO. Yeah the numbers are in the EVO's favor...but only when you take weight into consideration. Isn't it funny that no one can "properly launch" an EVO? Sometimes numbers don't match what happens in the real world. I hear so many Import guys saying "oh the (insert random import here) would have taken that (camaro or mustang) if he would have launched it right". Did anyone take into consideration that MAYBE it's not possible to "launch it right"? With front wheel drive, you get to a point where there is just too much power. It's the same way for RWD but you can go ALOT further. I thought my GTP just had too much power...cause i have the same problem...i try to really launch hard, and get nothing but wheelspin. That's why race cars have classically been RWD. Just because it's the old way doesn't mean it's the wrong way.

The EVO will go down in history as one of those glorious oddities...like the SRT-4 and maybe even STI. Though the STI has alot more technology and a higher class appeal, so it may have a chance. The point is, we see these types of cars come along every ten years or so...remember the Dodge Spirit Turbo, Grand Prix Turbo, Grand National, and Trans Am turbo? Those were all sick cars...but lasted only a couple of years. Bottom line is no matter how fast a Lancer is, it's still a Lancer, and very few people will pay the outrageous price of an EVO for what is really just a dressed up Lancer. Not that this pattern is a bad thing, it certainly gives us something to talk about.

you been living in a cave dude..?
Mustangs dont just have to be the fastest to be the best...
sorry...but the MUSTANG is already a legand and has been one since its intro before you where even born....
Nothing could take its place and its value in the USA.
They are an American ICON and always will be.
You hate them only because you know how much rest of the world loves them and they know how to appreciate them.
I dont have to try to change your mind. With over 7 million Mustangs sold since its conception, theres plenty who seem to have a different opinion then yours already.

[wawazat??]

but irrelevant...

Ford didn't have to put together a Mustang to beat the Camaro and Firebird, it simply always outsold them both combined. Not enough people actually purchased them for GM to consider keeping them in production. Ford had no need to produce a higher performance Mustang to compete with a dead GM platform. Ford didn't have to think on its feet, Camaro/Firebird customers were voting with their feet (aka not buying them).

Grand Prix Turbo (as well as the twin dual cam GP) a sick car HA! LOL

Todd

[upnygimp]

Someone's obviosly had their head up their butt as to recent performance trends. If you haven't noticed, the performace cars for the younger generation are small 4 cyl imports with turbos on them. That coupled with the new love for rallying that has grown in the US has made these cars quite popular indeed. The fact that they are selling well with a $30,000 sticker is a testament to this.

And don't hate on Mustangs. They really are nice cars, as much as your closed mind thinks they're not. Its just like all the V8 people, in utter disbelief that their cars can be beaten by a car with half the cylinders. So they go into denial, and when you question them they get upset. I've seen it on quite a few message boards.

And for the record, I never said I hated Mustangs, the only thing I've been saying is that the EVO should have given him a better run.

[Beav]

It seems peculiar to me how the most noise always seems to come from the wheels that carries the least weight.

So many have fallen prey to the rantings of the few. Whoever yells loudest must be the one that is right. Damn, that's how Hitler, McCarthy and many others played it. After the din subsides it is always found that they were the farthest from the truth.

The truth here doesn't lie in the form of who makes a better whatever, the truth lies in the fact that all manufacturers make vehicles with problematic areas. Broken springs on Escorts and Aerostars, head gaskets, transmissions and evaporators on Chrysler products, cracked heads and flat cams on small block Chevys, Cadillac 4-6-8 (shudder), 4.1L - 4.9L engines and Northstars. Vega, Chevette, Monza, Corvair - cars that should have never been, all brought to you by GM (Gross Mismanagement, God's Mistake, whatever...) British cars that leak oil on the showroom floor, any car with Lucas electrics (the Duke of Darkness), Japanese cars that have more rubber in vacuum hoses than tires.

Chevy (or GM - they're all the same, right?) vs. Ford vs. the world will always rage between those that only see the small picture. GM has built better looking cars but their content has been miserable. I do prefer Suburbans and Escalades over Ex-UVs by a wide margin, but definitely not because of their drivetrains. However stating that Ford is homgenizing the automotive world is ridiculous. Volvo built flying bricks (although they swear they had new models designed before the purchase) and Jaguar built beautiful, wonderful cars that were a PITA to own, but now they are both nice, reasonably dependable cars. GM bought SAAB ("Oh God! Ford and Iacocca are buying everything in sight, we better buy something too!") I can't really tell that their purchase has yielded any improvements for SAAB, in fact I wonder if they still make them. DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE KNOW IF THEY STILL MAKE SAABS?

Here's the deal, they all have their problems. I've been working on them longer than the loudest of you have been breathing. You have the right to have opinions, I'm just saying that yours are defective.

And that's my opinion.

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by Beav
It seems peculiar to me how the most noise always seems to come from the wheels that carries the least weight.

So many have fallen prey to the rantings of the few. Whoever yells loudest must be the one that is right. Damn, that's how Hitler, McCarthy and many others played it. After the din subsides it is always found that they were the farthest from the truth.

The truth here doesn't lie in the form of who makes a better whatever, the truth lies in the fact that all manufacturers make vehicles with problematic areas. Broken springs on Escorts and Aerostars, head gaskets, transmissions and evaporators on Chrysler products, cracked heads and flat cams on small block Chevys, Cadillac 4-6-8 (shudder), 4.1L - 4.9L engines and Northstars. Vega, Chevette, Monza, Corvair - cars that should have never been, all brought to you by GM (Gross Mismanagement, God's Mistake, whatever...) British cars that leak oil on the showroom floor, any car with Lucas electrics (the Duke of Darkness), Japanese cars that have more rubber in vacuum hoses than tires.

Chevy (or GM - they're all the same, right?) vs. Ford vs. the world will always rage between those that only see the small picture. GM has built better looking cars but their content has been miserable. I do prefer Suburbans and Escalades over Ex-UVs by a wide margin, but definitely not because of their drivetrains. However stating that Ford is homgenizing the automotive world is ridiculous. Volvo built flying bricks (although they swear they had new models designed before the purchase) and Jaguar built beautiful, wonderful cars that were a PITA to own, but now they are both nice, reasonably dependable cars. GM bought SAAB ("Oh God! Ford and Iacocca are buying everything in sight, we better buy something too!") I can't really tell that their purchase has yielded any improvements for SAAB, in fact I wonder if they still make them. DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE KNOW IF THEY STILL MAKE SAABS?

Here's the deal, they all have their problems. I've been working on them longer than the loudest of you have been breathing. You have the right to have opinions, I'm just saying that yours are defective.

And that's my opinion.

Good to see you Beav, and thanks for your opinion.

I need to make a trip to L-Ville -- My front end's getting sloppy. Hope to see you soon.

[SubaSteevo]

Originally posted by Shadow248
The EVO will go down in history as one of those glorious oddities...like the SRT-4 and maybe even STI. Though the STI has alot more technology and a higher class appeal, so it may have a chance. The point is, we see these types of cars come along every ten years or so...remember the Dodge Spirit Turbo, Grand Prix Turbo, Grand National, and Trans Am turbo? Those were all sick cars...but lasted only a couple of years. Bottom line is no matter how fast a Lancer is, it's still a Lancer, and very few people will pay the outrageous price of an EVO for what is really just a dressed up Lancer. Not that this pattern is a bad thing, it certainly gives us something to talk about.

Let's pretend there's an imaginary country, we'll call it Napaj. In Napaj about 30,000 Evos have been sold since 1992 with a price of about $40k US. Also in Napaj, the STi has been sold since 1994. In Napaj, 500 special edition versions of the STi, let's call it the 22B, sold out in under 24 hours with a price tag of about $50k US. Now THAT would be something worth talking about!

[Royal Tiger]

For the ford lovers, check the numbers. 57% of all time mustang sales were 4 or 6 cylinders, not 8's. The top selling mustang from 1985-1995 was the 6 cylinder LX, not the V-8 GT.

[Shadow248]

Let's pretend there's an imaginary country, we'll call it Napaj. In Napaj about 30,000 Evos have been sold since 1992 with a price of about $40k US. Also in Napaj, the STi has been sold since 1994. In Napaj, 500 special edition versions of the STi, let's call it the 22B, sold out in under 24 hours with a price tag of about $50k US. Now THAT would be something worth talking about!

Again, nothing that hasn't happened before. The US is nothing like any other country in the world. Whereas just about everyone else in the world has realized the benefits of small and efficient cars, we are still obsessed with huge $40,000 SUVs. Those cars sell great in those countries because that's what those people are used to...that's what they want.

Here's the deal, they all have their problems. I've been working on them longer than the loudest of you have been breathing. You have the right to have opinions, I'm just saying that yours are defective.

Beav, i've been saying what you said in that huge post of yours for just about the entire time that i've been a member of these boards. To this day, no one seems to care.

Someone's obviosly had their head up their butt as to recent performance trends. If you haven't noticed, the performace cars for the younger generation are small 4 cyl imports with turbos on them. That coupled with the new love for rallying that has grown in the US has made these cars quite popular indeed. The fact that they are selling well with a $30,000 sticker is a testament to this.

Only one problem genius, "the younger generation" as you call it, doesn't have $30,000 to spend on small imports with turbos on them. No matter how much they like them. If everyone could just have what they wanted, without money being a factor, life would be very different. Kids love those cars cause they can afford the base models, and they believe that having the base model lancer makes them cool just because the Evo is a lancer. Once these kids grow up and can afford those cars, their eyes turn towards cars like the mustang, GTO, Vette, or MAYBE the STI (like i said that has a higher class appeal than most).

Ford didn't have to put together a Mustang to beat the Camaro and Firebird, it simply always outsold them both combined. Not enough people actually purchased them for GM to consider keeping them in production. Ford had no need to produce a higher performance Mustang to compete with a dead GM platform. Ford didn't have to think on its feet, Camaro/Firebird customers were voting with their feet (aka not buying them).

Im going to talk in terms of the V8's here, because the V6 cars don't follow the normal sales trends. In 2002 GM's F-body (Camaro, Firebird) actually outsold the Mustang. The Mustang did not begin to outsell the F-body until around 1995, likely because the Camaro's price tag was climbing quickly toward the 30g mark, whereas the stang was holding it's price. Again, Ford won that battle by having a lower price. In 2002 the Camaro Z28 sold for $28,600, whereas a Mustang GT sold for about $24,000. That's a pretty hefty price difference. At the height of the mustang's popularity, it outsold the F-body by less than 2,000 units. GM's cutoff was 30,000 units per year, and once the F-body's combined sales dropped below that, they got the axe. By comparison, the Stang is still right about at that mark, and Ford keeps it going. Perhaps that's why GM is the number one automaker in the world and Ford is fighting to keep it's third place spot? Just because we don't like what a company does doesn't mean it's a bad decision. In the end, they're in it for the money. Just for the sake of conversation, Ford had actually decided to axe the mustang twice in it's life, but enthusiasts spoke up and kept it alive. Bet you didn't think of that.

Grand Prix Turbo (as well as the twin dual cam GP) a sick car HA! LOL

The 1989 GP Turbo was a 1/10th of a second faster than the 1989 Trans Am. It was much faster than the 89 stang GT. In 1989 it was, indeed, a sick car. In it's last year of production (1996) the 3.4L (twin dual) GTP was 1/10th of a sec faster to 60 than the 1996 stang GT. Bet you didn't know that. In their days they were all respectable cars.

you been living in a cave dude..?
Mustangs dont just have to be the fastest to be the best...
sorry...but the MUSTANG is already a legand and has been one since its intro before you where even born....
Nothing could take its place and its value in the USA.
They are an American ICON and always will be.
You hate them only because you know how much rest of the world loves them and they know how to appreciate them.
I dont have to try to change your mind. With over 7 million Mustangs sold since its conception, theres plenty who seem to have a different opinion then yours already.

Thus is the spirit of the performance world. I don't argue cause i think people are stupid, i argue because it's entertaining and it furthers my knowledge. I always learn something new out of these sort of conversations. I agree with you 100%...just because i don't like a car doesn't mean i think it sucks. The first generation mustangs were awesome cars...and if not for the mustang, the camaro may have never been thought of. The mustang created not only a legend, but an entire segment of the car industry. For that, i am thankful. I would be very proud to own just about any 1st Gen V8 mustang...just like a 1st gen V8 Camaro. Those were the days when they were pure and un-censored. Both GM and Ford slowly neutered their respective Muscle cars, i just believe Ford went too far. I know they are capable of much better and i wish they had done better sooner, that way we could have seen some great comparisons between Camaros and Mustangs where the stang would have had a chance or maybe even stomped the Camaro.



Just because more people buy a particular car doesn't make it any better than any other car. More people buy McDonald's food than any other food out there...anyone want to try to argue that McDonald's makes the best food there is? Didn't think so. Some of the greatest cars on the road, cars that NO ONE in here would argue are tops, sell the least units. In the end it all comes down to price. People are willing to sacrifice alot when it comes to saving money.

[wawazat??]

I never said it was better, but the car buying public felt it was in either V-6 or V-8 form as it is still available for sale today unlike the f-bodies.


Here is a 1992 test showing the Mustang LX 5.0 0-60 at 6.2 seconds. The only reference I could find on the GP Turbo showed it at low 7 second range (about what my VW Passat station wagon could do)

http://www.subaru-svx.net/photos/fil...3F%3F/1214.jpg


The GTP 3.4L twin dual cam engine was not a high point in Pontiac history(where is this high-tech marvel today). My sister had one with the rare factory 5 speed. Car was constantly in the dealer for repair, ECU recalibration, fuel system problems (pump failure, tank baffle failure, injector issues...). Pontiac finally told her that they could not get the calibration correct on this low production version (5 speed) and that she'd have to live with the driveablility issues, stalling, and general poor performance. What a joke! She ended up trading it in on a Toyota Celica, her first imported car and was very happy.

You need to remember that not all limited production vehicles are desirable.

Todd

I have owned multiple Mustangs and actually voted to keep it alive in the '80's (bet YOU didn't think of that ). It also says alot about a company that is willing to keep a platform going to support its fans and owners. Apparently Generous Motors didn't feel f-body owners cared enough about the platform and it's history to keep it alive

[Royal Tiger]

Shadow, you rock. You are right on the money. Plus you are also from the Lehigh Valley area, so that doesn't hurt!!!!!! ford's marketing stratagy since the early 80's was cheaper, not better. No reasonable person can honestly look at the last 20 years and not see that. 5 years ago GM made ABS standard across the board. ABS is the single best thing out there to help you remain in control of your vehicle. It also costs money. The ford was cheaper, but had less on it. Hero of the rental fleets. That's why they sell more. That's why GM went back to making ABS an option, to make thier cars cheaper.

[Aredubjay]

As Beav said, they "ALL" have their problems. We could completely fill up the "Not Exactly SVX" Forum (which, in case I haven't made it clear, I resent) with "Horrible <your least favorite, due to a crappy experience car here> Stories," but, I hope we won't.

[Shadow248]

The GTP 3.4L twin dual cam engine was not a high point in Pontiac history(where is this high-tech marvel today). My sister had one with the rare factory 5 speed. Car was constantly in the dealer for repair, ECU recalibration, fuel system problems (pump failure, tank baffle failure, injector issues...). Pontiac finally told her that they could not get the calibration correct on this low production version (5 speed) and that she'd have to live with the driveablility issues, stalling, and general poor performance. What a joke! She ended up trading it in on a Toyota Celica, her first imported car and was very happy.

You need to remember that not all limited production vehicles are desirable.

Right on both counts. I never said i liked the 3.4L...just that it's anything but a dog. I've had relatively good luck with the engine...except that EVERYTHING on it is RIDICULOUSLY expensive to fix. But it definetly has it's problems, regardless of my good fortune. You know what the funniest part about that engine is? It's not even a GM designed engine. GM borrowed that design from Honda to try to bring their cars into the "modern times" because at that time it was believed that OHC designs were far superior to Pushrod engines. Well largely because of failure of the 3.4L, GM has strengthened it's dependence on the Pushrod design. It's cheaper, simpler, more reliable, and some of the most powerful factory engines are pushrod designs.

Apparently Generous Motors didn't feel f-body owners cared enough about the platform and it's history to keep it alive

Nope, General Motors just didn't care. They are more concerned about the bottom line in the end. Just an unfortunate byproduct of being competitive. Ford listened to it's customers, and see where the company is now? In big trouble.

Shadow, you rock. You are right on the money. Plus you are also from the Lehigh Valley area, so that doesn't hurt!!!!!! ford's marketing stratagy since the early 80's was cheaper, not better. No reasonable person can honestly look at the last 20 years and not see that. 5 years ago GM made ABS standard across the board. ABS is the single best thing out there to help you remain in control of your vehicle. It also costs money. The ford was cheaper, but had less on it. Hero of the rental fleets. That's why they sell more. That's why GM went back to making ABS an option, to make thier cars cheaper.

Thanks, your pretty cool yourself.

[NapaBavarian]

Originally posted by PA_SVX
Since the one thing we can agree on, (the whole shoot the moving car thread hopefully becoming a bad memory) is that we seem to all dispise the blue oval.

I would agree on Ford cars, but their Heavy Duty trucks, F250HD and up, are unstopable, in the early '90s when GM and Dodge were building overdressed out dated time bombs ford was building a simple, functional beast, I couldn't even come close with GM (poor reliability, engine failures, too many bells and whistles to break, or Dodge, with a body right out out the '70s

[SVXphile]

First, a quote from Subafreak:

"I think thoes SVT guys do some serious improving considering what they have to work with. When they made the Focus SVT they just about had a whole new motor designed for it becouse the stock one is such a peice of crap. I despise most fords too, but you have to give the SVT Cobra some cred, it's probly nothing like the mass product once the SVT guys were done with it."

That comment reminded me that I had a guy ask me about my SVT Focus a few months back, and wanted to know the difference between it and a regular one.
I told him, "Other than the engine, transmission, exaust, suspension, wheels, tires, facia, interior, gauges and stereo....it's just the same as any other Focus!"

A bit over a year ago I promised someone that I would keep them updated on how my "pos" Focus was doing, and I guess it's time for the one year/20k mile update. This past spring SVT did a reflash on the chip to correct a high idle problem when the engine started cold. Last month I had a broken cat brace replaced. I also wore out the original Continental Sport Contacts and replaced them with Conti Extreme Contacts. End of report.

I have never owned any car other than a Austin Healey, MG, Triumph (and people talk about Fords!), Honda, Suzuki and Subaru until the Focus. I had never imagined myself owning ANY domestic car prior to this one. However, rave reviews in the magazines and a test drive sold me on the fact that this was a rare combination.....a nearly perfectly balanced automobile....and as of now I have yet to change my opinion. I will not engage in trashing nameplates for the simple reason that EVERY company can make 300k miles winners and lemons on the same production line. A person "pays your money and you takes your chances" the same as any of us. My dad had a Caddy he put 250k nearly trouble-free miles on. A relative of our had one that was replaced under the lemon law. Say-la-vee....

I'm not really into all this bowtie vs. blue oval vs. ram horns thing anyway. I just drove the "Tail of the Dragon" at Deals Gap with my SVT and I'm still grinning ear-to-ear!

Happy New Year everyone!!! Don

[kayvon]

SVXphile

I have to agree with you about svt focus. For the price you can get one. The amount standard options supplied, you can't go wrong. My brother has a 03 and it is very fun to drive. I would never consider a standard focus, but the SVT seams to be in class of itself. Here are some PICs

http://www.sounddomain.com/id/kams_svt