Do you own (or did you own ) one of the "10 Cars That Sank Detroit"?

[moorecomp]

I said yes, but I had the Mercury Bobcat version of the Pinto (mine was a 1974 model). It had a fancier grill and different tailights. I had to replace the cam at 75000 miles, because they had a lubrication problem due to lack of oil holes in the cam bearing bosses. All told, I put over 150,000 miles on that car and it was one of my favorite rides. A friend of mine I used to work with used perfromance parts from a company called Racer Walsh, and had forged pistons, headers, h/o intake, big carb, NOS, and could lift the front tires shifting into second and hitting the NOS.

[Doofus McFancypants]

never owned - nor did parents own.

I agree he missed some of the points - but the trend that the business model is seriously flawed is very obvious.

The model needs to be fixed for them to survive... people are building there own EV's not outta lead acid - WOULD IT KILL an auto company to offer a 50 Mile fully electrc - fully road worthy commter?? I bet they would sell a good number of them and even make a decent profit off of it.

Reopen the METRO assmebly lines - but in a electric motor and some lead - POOF - fully electric - car NOW. ( and skip past the NEV crap)

Just my thought

[socalsuperhero]

2003 Explorer Sport Trac, still have it. Lucky to get 21mpg in that pig with snow tires on.

[cfg83]

PaleMelanesian -

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

Honestly, I think the Taurus was a great car, especially the early ones. It was a game-changer when it debuted. One they should have maintained and improved, rather than kill off.

I agree. I think it would be fair to say that it's introduction made aerodynamic design fashionable. It's sister, the Mercury Sable, had a great Cd. Both the Cavalier and Taurus suffered from *neglect*. This jibes with my Dad-in-Law's experience. He had a 1990's Taurus that became a terrible junker within a few years. And he treats his cars with TLC.

CarloSW2

[SuperTrooper]

My wife's current every day ride is a '99 Explorer Sport. This writer's take on the Explorer is mostly offbase. Ford was reacting to the growing fleet of Japanese mid-size SUVs, not what GM was doing. While Honda was late to the game, Toyota and Nissan were right in there with Detroit on the SUV boom. They even got sucked into the full size pickup/SUV market because it was too big a market to ignore. He is correct when he says it shifted Ford's focus from the car market, but when your biggest moneymakers are out-selling everybody else it's hard not to get tunnel vision.

BTW, when I went Explorer shopping in 1993 I couldn't get one without waiting a month and paying MSRP. I wound up with a great deal on an Isuzu Trooper, which is my bad weather commute vehicle to this day. I can't kill the #@%&! thing! It'll sit for weeks waiting to tow my boat or take me to work in a blizzard, and starts on the first turn of the key every time.

[robbiewt]

When I first got my license I drove my parent's 95 taurus station wagon. It seemed average enough. I don't see why ford killed it. The creation of the Five Hundred hurt Ford.

In my extended family there is at least one cavalier, one sebring, and one prius.

[Tango Charlie]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

Honestly, I think the Taurus was a great car, especially the early ones. It was a game-changer when it debuted. One they should have maintained and improved, rather than kill off.

Originally Posted by cfg83

PaleMelanesian -
I agree. I think it would be fair to say that it's introduction made aerodynamic design fashionable. It's sister, the Mercury Sable, had a great Cd. Both the Cavalier and Taurus suffered from *neglect*. This jibes with my Dad-in-Law's experience. He had a 1990's Taurus that became a terrible junker within a few years. And he treats his cars with TLC.
CarloSW2

I'll echo that. Ford hit one out of the park with the first gen Taurus. But we owned a 2nd gen when we were first married, and it was a LEMON. Besides attracting falling trees.

[beatr911]

The Taurus was a clean sheet design. The story I remember was that the design group finally persuaded management to let them start from scratch and design something they know would be a hit. This took alot of persuading, salesmanship and nuts by someone to pull off without the inspiration getting diluted in the corporate mire on the way to production.

As I remember (which isn't always accurate) the corporate situation of the big 3, or 4 at the time, was similar to what we see today. I think about the same time Chrysler was getting thier bailout (someone validate this please) which resulted in the Lee Iacocca K-car, thus saving Chrysler for a time.

Gee, history really DOES repeat itsself.

It seems the weak link in the US auto industry is the moral compass of management. Where the big 3 make only what they think will sell, the asian mfrs make what they think people will like to own and live with. There is an important difference here. The big 3 look for profits within 3 or so years, justifiably because it reflects the needs of stockholders - the owners of the company. The asian business model looks for profit in a much longer term that includes earned brand loyalty and the longer term sustainability (to use an over worked word) of profitability.

Where the big three staked profitability on trucks and SUVs where they sold well and made good profits, the asian mfrs were more cautious entering this market. Sure they jumped in, why not, there was $ to be made and it was becoming a long term fad. The difference was that the asian mfrs had already established a culture of reliable and efficient design that makes a vehicle good to live with, rather than for.

Lets hope the culture of american car companies change to include a vision that is oh say 30 years out. Products that reflect this will get my vote with dollars. I sure hope they will learn from this, I really do.

[Andyman]

I have two of them: an Astro van and the Pontiac version of the Cavalier. The Astro is pretty worn out but it doesn't have rust holes. The previous owner drove it about 400,000 miles. It has problems with rear axle noise, weak front springs, worn front brake caliper brackets, broken outside driver's door handle and inside rear door handle, windshield cracks, windshield wiper switch, dashboard light control and headliner. What's good is that it always starts easily and has a strong engine. It gets about 20 MPG highway.

The Pontiac has slow acceleration and only gets about 30 MPG highway. The torque converter clutch tends to get stuck on when hot. That means I can't stop without putting it in neutral or stopping the engine. It releases about 30 minutes after I turn off the engine. The transmission is annoying sometimes. It tends to downshift from 3rd gear to 1st when I try to accelerate. The power steering doesn't have any power assist until the car warms up enough. I've updated the suspension with larger wheels, stronger springs and shocks and antiroll (or antisway) bars. It handles very well on turns and I can carry an engine in the trunk without making the rear end sag too low. It also has a nice strong rear bumper that holds up when other cars have bumped into it.

I haven't used these lately.

[RiseAbove]

Both of my current cars are on the list. My 1999 Cavalier is my daily commuter, and I average around 33 mpg. Not bad. No real mechanical problems in 99000 miles. 1 broken serp belt. My wife drives the Merc Sable, a Taurus twin. No mechanical probs at all in 85000 miles.
Author had many wrong takes... For example the Taurus. Here is the real story (I have 20+ years in Supply Chain JIT for Ford, Toyota, Honda GM).
Ford killed the Taurus name at the same time they killed the Atlanta Assembly Plant in Lawrenceville GA. If they moved the Taurus name to another plant, the UAW workers could follow their jobs. If they change it, the could screw the UAW. So they moved the full sized car platform to Chicago Assy, a sister (former Taurus plant), and made the 500 and the Ford Freestar. After the time was up for the Atlanta workers, the rebadged the 500 as the Taurus. A cynical and union busting move.