Trans_Maro wrote: The Pinto? pardon? That was the car that saved Ford. Reliable, well-built, good economy.
While I agree that Pintos are cool cars, just because it saved Ford didn't make it good.
If my leg falls off and I'm bleeding to death, and I put a band-aid over the fastest-leaking artery and it barely keeps me alive until I get to the hospital, that doesn't mean it was the best remedy for the situation.
curtis73 wrote: While I agree that Pintos are cool cars, just because it saved Ford didn't make it good. If my leg falls off and I'm bleeding to death, and I put a band-aid over the fastest-leaking artery and it barely keeps me alive until I get to the hospital, that doesn't mean it was the best remedy for the situation.
LMAO 
Yes, they do have their downsides. Ugly as sin and you have to be seen driving one.
They're coming into their own a bit now in that "so far from cool that they're actually cool" kinda way (but not really).
I work with an aging hipster that has many Pintos in his Falcon/Comet/Futura collection.
Shawn
BAMF wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: Modern Unions=money blackhole/Economy murder suspectUnions aren't the problem, at least not the only problem.
Agreed, they are not the only problem, but from a financial standpoit (i.e. labor being probably one of their top 3 financial outputs) the UAW has bled detroit dry by forcing the companies to pay their employees as highly as they have been and to offer the benefits they do. I do agree that management or the lack therof has definitely hurt detroit. Toyotas 6 sigma and Kaizen methodology of continuous improvement needs to be taken to heart and I mean yesterday. I have worked in a factory for 4 years now that utilizes this method, and I can say genuinely that any manufacturing facility that does not use this method is asking to fail.
mad_machine wrote: I do not know about the unions elsewhere.. but anybody who bad mouths one is welcome to work alongside me for a day.
Admittedly, I mispoke. I didnt mean to say all unions are bad for companies,Which I clearly did say, so for that allow me to clarify. I cannot speak for all unions as I have never worked for one. But I do know from first hand accounts, the UAW is bad for manufacturing. I could tell you a million first hand stories from ex-UAW employees about how the union did nothing for them but hinder their job function and hurt the company in the process.
a noteable point is that its the younger ex-UAWers Ive spoken to (i.e. my father, my father in law, multiple friends of mine and several co-workers) who are all ~50 or younger who have these negative stories to tell. However, I also have heard a lot of stories from people over 60 or so that have good things to say. I think at one time the UAW was needed and did what was right for employess. I just think they grew too big and too powerful and eventually bit the hand that feeds.
i heard a great discription of the Aztec the other day. "It looks like Sponge Bob Squarepants on wheels. They called it a crossover, because it made people cross over to the Toyota dealer."
Trans_Maro wrote:curtis73 wrote: While I agree that Pintos are cool cars, just because it saved Ford didn't make it good. If my leg falls off and I'm bleeding to death, and I put a band-aid over the fastest-leaking artery and it barely keeps me alive until I get to the hospital, that doesn't mean it was the best remedy for the situation.LMAO
My first race car, back in '80, was a '72 Pinto with a modded 2 liter. Fun car, and autocrossed very well. At the time, my folks had a '73 Pinto Squire wagon, with a modded Capri 2.3 liter and 5 speed. Pretty fast little wagon that was also very practical. Both were dead nuts reliable, too. I've liked them ever since. In fact, a buddy from high school at the time had a '72 Coupe that had a built 289 V8 in it. VERY quick little car.
I want to build up another one. In fact, I want the one on the cover of this catalog (which I had back in the day):
http://www.fordpinto.com/pdfs/iecocatalog.pdf
Yeah, I like the Pinto, but I'm a Maverick guy. I've had two. They're so light that even the stock 302 seemed screaming fast.
I want to do one up trans-am style; big fender flares, monster-wide rubber, full cage, and then drop in a suby AWD drivetrain from an STI :)
Chris_V wrote: I want to build up another Pinto. In fact, I want the one on the cover of this catalog (which I had back in the day): http://www.fordpinto.com/pdfs/iecocatalog.pdf
Naca ducts and chin spoilers on smaller RWD platforms always make me gigle in delight like a schoolkid on the last day of school
curtis73 wrote: Yeah, I like the Pinto, but I'm a Maverick guy. I've had two. They're so light that even the stock 302 seemed screaming fast. I want to do one up trans-am style; big fender flares, monster-wide rubber, full cage, and then drop in a suby AWD drivetrain from an STI :)
I used to want an early Maverick 4 door, done up AMG style, with a 460 set back for balance. Now I've realized that what i was trying to build was a version of what I have now, only it wouldn't have been as nice to be in. 
the Grabber wasn't bad:
I still think the BOSS maverick would be a cool one to build:
Cars don't kill car companies, people do.
The decisions that led to crap cars were many and frequent and it was not the fault of any car.
I REALLY like the idea of listing all the government mandated costs on a breakdown sheet.
I have only ever been in one pinto. An early coupe in baby blue. Friend of mind actually managed to hurt an old 240 volvo with it.
It was a nice car, much better than the Pontial T2000 and the new ford festiva that came afterwards
walterj wrote: Cars don't kill car companies, people do. The decisions that led to crap cars were many and frequent and it was not the fault of any car. I REALLY like the idea of listing all the government mandated costs on a breakdown sheet.
I grew up in a GM town. I knew plenty of people that worked in all the auto companies and there suppliers. I even spent a summer internship in Chrysler plant. The problems I saw and heard were cultural. Some gifted visionaries, Alfred Sloan, Henry Ford, and Walter Chrysler, built the industry. Each created a playbook of sorts and set of values that worked extremely well up to the 1970's. Then the auto world changed in some fundamental ways. Government regulation, new competition, higher oil prices and changing consumer preferences are all things that have been analyzed to death here.
The US companies didn't see the changes coming, lived arrogantly in denial for decades about the world changing, and tried to execute the same plays from the same playbook that worked 30 years before. It reminds of the old school generals in world war on who sent thousands of men to death in massive infantry charges. There was a new weapon on the battlefield called a machine gun that made that style of infantry charge ineffective. Yet it took thousands of lives and years for them to stop using ordering them and develop new tools (tanks) and tactics to counter the machine gun.
I am looking forward to the day when the American branches of the big 2.5, build a range of vehicles with good profit margins that don't follow this formula: 8 cylinders + live axle.
Type Q wrote: I am looking forward to the day when the American branches of the big 2.5, build a range of vehicles with good profit margins that don't follow this formula: 8 cylinders + live axle.
Thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Thats what people WANT. Rwd, high hp cars. My father's 2002 Camaro gets the same gas mileage as my Focus. There's nothing WRONG with 8 cylinders and live axles; in fact I love them. But to make that the selling point of your company isn't right, and better, smaller cars for the average joe should be the selling point..
HiTempguy wrote:Type Q wrote: I am looking forward to the day when the American branches of the big 2.5, build a range of vehicles with good profit margins that don't follow this formula: 8 cylinders + live axle.Thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Thats what people WANT. Rwd, high hp cars. My father's 2002 Camaro gets the same gas mileage as my Focus. There's nothing WRONG with 8 cylinders and live axles; in fact I love them. But to make that the selling point of your company isn't right, and better, smaller cars for the average joe should be the selling point..
Well it not what I want nor has it ever been what I wanted. Nor is it what is wanted by the majority of buyers in many markets around the world. Calling me dumb doesn't change this. The only domestic vehicle I have driven for any length of time was a Neon. I enjoyed the hell out of it. But I can't buy a new one because Chrysler didn't make enough money on them and thus it was canceled.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I don't have an issue with the V8 + live axel forumla. What frustrates me is that is that's the only formula they have had to make consistent money on. I know there is world class talent in Southeastern Michigan that can create cost and feature competitive platform in any market in the world. What has been lacking is the will to do it. I would really love to see these companies in a position to change their product mix quickly and profitably in the future depending on what is in demand rather than being tied to one platform to keep them in black.
I have a very good life and it was made possible the domestic auto industry. My dad worked for Ford for a time. GM wages paid the taxes that gave a good primary education. Taxes on auto industry wages subsidized greatly the my bachelors and master's degrees (Go Spartans!). Ford ponied up money to support the FSAE team I was on. I can continue with example after example, but my point is this. World class talent, world class companies, and the work of innumerable people has been squandered by unwillingness to acknowledge change and be world class in the new reality. No one in Michigan is going to have the life and opportunities I did for a long time.
It didn't need to be this way.
HiTempguy wrote: Thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Thats what people WANT. Rwd, high hp cars.
No it's not. The majority of people don't give a E36 M3 about RWD vs FWD. Most are probably not even aware it exists. People don't care which wheels are driven as long as the car goes forward when they push the right pedal down.
People like power. They like to feel more powerful than those around them. Whether that means being "faster", louder, or bigger, or whatever... doesn't matter. They like to feel cool. They like to be comfortable and to be entertained. They don't want to be bothered.
The modern car outperforms many old sportscars. A Camry has more performance than most people will ever make use of. People don't care about actual performance, only the appearance of performance. I mean, really. A Camry has more horsepower than an E36 M3. No one at a track will complain about the inadequacies of an M3. What the hell does a Camry need that kind of power for? Oh, because people like to see a big number in front of "hp".
in a way that is true.. nobody wants a slow car. Most people do not care if it is front or rear wheel drive.. but in most people's minds AWD is better than either of the other two.. and if truth be told, I am pretty sure that FWD is even better in their minds than RWD except for cars like the Camaro, Mustang, BMW, Porsche, and the like.
I seriously doubt most people could tell what wheels are doing the driving. They just know they want a car that is not slow and handles decently.
ddavidv wrote: I found it laughable that they picked the Pinto yet completely ignored the Vega, which was a horrible car.
Amen on the Vega.
Salanis wrote: People don't care which wheels are driven as long as the car goes forward when they push the left pedal down.
I think my cars must be broken because I have to push the right pedal for them to go 
thatsnowinnebago wrote:Salanis wrote: People don't care which wheels are driven as long as the car goes forward when they push the left pedal down.I think my cars must be broken because I have to push the right pedal for them to go
Ooops, I guess I'm supposed to be looking at the back of my hands to know which one is "L".
why don't we just build simpler cars?
i like a car where it feels like there isn't that much between me and the oily bits... dont get me wrong, i like having a radio and all of that, but is it really necesary to have a 300 pound computer used to link up your cell phone and your car that might be used once, but probably not... whatever happened to cars that could be fixed with a pencil, a piece of a tin can, and the waste from your underwear? Lotus seems to understand this concept, at least in the fact that they are excluding useless features in their cars.
EPN wrote: why don't we just build simpler cars? i like a car where it feels like there isn't that much between me and the oily bits... dont get me wrong, i like having a radio and all of that, but is it really necesary to have a 300 pound computer used to link up your cell phone and your car that might be used once, but probably not... whatever happened to cars that could be fixed with a pencil, a piece of a tin can, and the waste from your underwear? Lotus seems to understand this concept, at least in the fact that they are excluding useless features in their cars.
Because the mass of America is not brain-damaged like us, good sir. They like their creature comforts.
I am not even sure that most americans would know what to do when faced with cranked windows, a manual transmission, no air, manual locks, and real knobs and buttons on the heat...
EPN wrote: why don't we just build simpler cars? i like a car where it feels like there isn't that much between me and the oily bits... dont get me wrong, i like having a radio and all of that, but is it really necesary to have a 300 pound computer used to link up your cell phone and your car that might be used once, but probably not... whatever happened to cars that could be fixed with a pencil, a piece of a tin can, and the waste from your underwear? Lotus seems to understand this concept, at least in the fact that they are excluding useless features in their cars.
Cars that were easy to fix went out with cars that needed to be fixed. My dad had cars that were easy to fix.. He kept a set of points in the glove box and we were never stranded. I know because on the side of the road on a family vacation I'd hold the flashlight and umbrella while he changed those points and condensor. I've owned three cars that are at the bottom of the food chain, an Escort, Cavalier and Malibu. At 200k I still really only need to open the hood to fill up the washer fluid. I have never been stuck on the side of the road and don't carry any extra pieces. I will never understand the people that miss the cars of the good old days, where you would walk to school on the first cold day beacuse the choke was stuck or mom flooded the carb, and you needed to carry a tune up kit in the glove box, do you miss having to patch tire tubes as well?
Wally wrote: i heard a great discription of the Aztec the other day. "It looks like Sponge Bob Squarepants on wheels. They called it a crossover, because it made people cross over to the Toyota dealer."
I once heard it described as Hindenburg-esque.
is it wrong that in high school when the azteck came out I wanted one?
neon4891 wrote: is it wrong that in high school when the azteck came out I wanted one?
We all did dumb things in high school, some we just don't share in public. I used to go to my room and watch Dr Quinn Medicine woman for a few minutes every week.
You'll need to log in to post.
