Foreign Cars.

[Det_ard]

I realize that you're in the industry, that's why it's so strange that you seem ignorant of the major improvements in automotive technology over the last 20 years.

For starters, the base 1990 Taurus had a 4 cylinder that put out 90 h.p. It had a 3 speed auto. It didn't have port fuel injection. It didn't have ABS. It didn't have airbags. ABS was optional as was a driver's side airbag, but they were very costly options back then. They were also first generation designs, unlike the much more advanced designs today.

No standard power locks. No standard power windows. Much less sophisticated engine management hardware and software. Much higher level of defects. Noisier. A/C is optional, not standard. AM radio is standard, FM and tape are optional. CDs? In Town Cars, not base Tauruses. Fuel efficiency is higher per horsepower and emissions are lower. Durability is better. Manufacturing processes are less variable resulting in higher quality parts at lower cost. The list goes on and on.

Ask one of your older supplier coworkers if there's a difference in technology between 1990 and now. It's night and day. It's great you're furthering your education but your position on this thread belies a level of ignorance about basic truths in the industry that you ought to be aware of. If you have a chance, talk to someone at the car company about this. They do year over year comparisons of content, technology, performance, efficiency, things formerly optional made standard, betterment of components like when ABS went from 2 channel to 4 channel, all so that they have an accurate picture of the yearly product change when they make their introductory pricing decisions. Since it's a compelling value story, this info is communicated to dealership sales managers and salespersons. It's pretty common knowledge. I've been in the industry since the 80's and the inexorable march toward better value every year was apparent and readily acknowledged back then.

[CountrySquire]

I realize that you're in the industry, that's why it's so strange that you seem ignorant of the major improvements in automotive technology over the last 20 years.

For starters, the base 1990 Taurus had a 4 cylinder that put out 90 h.p. It had a 3 speed auto. It didn't have port fuel injection. It didn't have ABS. It didn't have airbags. ABS was optional as was a driver's side airbag, but they were very costly options back then. They were also first generation designs, unlike the much more advanced designs today.

No standard power locks. No standard power windows. Much less sophisticated engine management hardware and software. Much higher level of defects. Noisier. A/C is optional, not standard. AM radio is standard, FM and tape are optional. CDs? In Town Cars, not base Tauruses. Fuel efficiency is higher per horsepower and emissions are lower. Durability is better. Manufacturing processes are less variable resulting in higher quality parts at lower cost. The list goes on and on.

Ask one of your older supplier coworkers if there's a difference in technology between 1990 and now. It's night and day. It's great you're furthering your education but your position on this thread belies a level of ignorance about basic truths in the industry that you ought to be aware of. If you have a chance, talk to someone at the car company about this. They do year over year comparisons of content, technology, performance, efficiency, things formerly optional made standard, betterment of components like when ABS went from 2 channel to 4 channel, all so that they have an accurate picture of the yearly product change when they make their introductory pricing decisions. Since it's a compelling value story, this info is communicated to dealership sales managers and salespersons. It's pretty common knowledge. I've been in the industry since the 80's and the inexorable march toward better value every year was apparent and readily acknowledged back then.

Sorry, you are plain wrong on a few of your points and show your ignorance and still evade my basic question as to why you feel a few of these improvements like passenger side airbags make the new cars stay beneath normal inflation. In 1990 The Standard engine was not a 4 cylinder, you are thinking Escort, you had a choice of two six cylinders, a 3.0 liter and a 3.8 Liter. The standard radio was not an AM, it would have been so in maybe 1980, by 1990 it would have been an AM FM Stereo, AC would have been a standard feature. Standard power locks / windows, I believe you would be getting these in 1990. Manufacturing processes are more robust creating higher quality? True, but Ford received numerous quality awards in the late 80s and Early 90s for its Taurus Line and it was on par with the imports of the time. And so what? As a consumer why do I care about the machines that build my car so long as the final product is what I want? Why would Joe consumer want to pay more for a car simply because it was built with more state of the art automated tooling than the next car? You do point out a few things like the two channel ABS but most of your paragraph is laden with conjecture. I still want to know where is my significant direct savings Ford has realized by putting hundreds of thousands out of work [[which includes indirect people dependant on Auto industry) and awarding that work to lower wage countries. Why doesn't that 2010 Taurus cost $11K? That's what I would expect as a company like a Ford is so much leaner now and cut out all that unnecessary fat.

[CountrySquire]

Hey Darwincynisism, you mean like Rock Auto? Even when it was pointed out to you that it was a real company that other people had heard of, but that you had accused me of making it all up. You mean those kinds of lies? What other types of lies do you hear through out your day? Maybe a lie like the earth is round and is not the center of the universe and that all planets in our galaxy orbit around it.

[EMG]

Chrysler May Not Make It Another Year:

http://247wallst.com/2009/10/01/chry...-another-year/

This guy tells it like it is.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Chrysler May Not Make It Another Year:

http://247wallst.com/2009/10/01/chry...-another-year/

This guy tells it like it is.

GM isn't out the woods either. The only one that looks like it might turn things around is Ford.

[darwinism]

Hey Darwincynisism, you mean like Rock Auto? Even when it was pointed out to you that it was a real company that other people had heard of, but that you had accused me of making it all up. You mean those kinds of lies? What other types of lies do you hear through out your day? Maybe a lie like the earth is round and is not the center of the universe and that all planets in our galaxy orbit around it.

Sure sounds like I'm not the only one seeing your lies here, liar .....

Hey, I gave you the Rock Auto thing but now you're just talking out your ass. If anyone even remotely connected with the industry can't see the difference between a 1990 vehicle and a 2009 vehicle they're either lying because they're afraid to lose face in an argument or their ignorance of the industry borders on incompetence and negligence.

Besides, the facts are against you here. The only data you've posted was shown to be cherry-picked. The facts posted by those arguing against you are linked, verifiable, pertinent and compelling.

[CountrySquire]

Darcynisism you got that right you are not the only one here that is denser than a sack of wet concrete.

[Det_ard]

Sorry, you are plain wrong on a few of your points and show your ignorance and still evade my basic question as to why you feel a few of these improvements like passenger side airbags make the new cars stay beneath normal inflation. In 1990 The Standard engine was not a 4 cylinder, you are thinking Escort, you had a choice of two six cylinders, a 3.0 liter and a 3.8 Liter. The standard radio was not an AM, it would have been so in maybe 1980, by 1990 it would have been an AM FM Stereo, AC would have been a standard feature. Standard power locks / windows, I believe you would be getting these in 1990.

Hey, I went to Edmunds and a couple other sites to do my research, maybe they're all wrong, but probably not. The 2.5L 4-cyl was std on L and GL lines. The radio be AM/FM but no cassette, no CD [[no XM, no Sirius, no IPOD adapter, no SYNC system, no HD radio, no in-car hard drive, get the idea, progress has been made in the last 20 years). A/C, power brakes and windows weren't standard on a base Taurus according to Edmunds.

But that's not the main point I'm making. The point I'm making has to do with the how cars have continually improved. Even if the price stayed the same you're getting far more for your money.

Manufacturing processes are more robust creating higher quality? True, but Ford received numerous quality awards in the late 80s and Early 90s for its Taurus Line and it was on par with the imports of the time. And so what? As a consumer why do I care about the machines that build my car so long as the final product is what I want? Why would Joe consumer want to pay more for a car simply because it was built with more state of the art automated tooling than the next car?

No, we don't care how it's done but we do care about the result. The result of better manufacturing processes is higher quality and lower cost, two items that consumers care very much about. The improvements in quality, measured over time by companies like JD Power in terms of defects per 100 vehicles, have been tremendous. Cars twenty years ago likely had three times as many defects.

You do point out a few things like the two channel ABS but most of your paragraph is laden with conjecture. I still want to know where is my significant direct savings Ford has realized by putting hundreds of thousands out of work [[which includes indirect people dependant on Auto industry) and awarding that work to lower wage countries. Why doesn't that 2010 Taurus cost $11K? That's what I would expect as a company like a Ford is so much leaner now and cut out all that unnecessary fat.

If you look at the automotive offerings today it's clear that manufacturers chose to put the savings into more competitive products. They could produce a '90 Taurus today for a realtively low price. Who'd buy it? The market has shown that a very inexpensive car won't succeed if it's beset by uncompetitve levels of defects and is very unrefined and poorly equipped compared to the competition [[think Yugo.) By today's standards, a '90 Taurus is a Yugo.

I've made my point as well as I can. I think it ought to be clear what I'm saying. I'm sorry if you don't get it but I'm not inclined to invest any more time in this. Good luck with your automotive career.

[CountrySquire]

Nice points Det_Ard. Yeah I think Edmunds is steering you wrong. The 2.5L was a GM engine and that would have been the standard on the Chevy Celibrity or Olds Cierra. I do agree with you that the 2010 Taurus is better car then the '90 Taurus. Too bad it won't see the sales volumes that the '90 did. This is directly due to cost cutting measures put into place by companies like Ford that helped detroy our economy which makes buying a 2010 Taurs an impossibilty for most.