Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#436
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Ray O wrote:
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire
engine, transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and
then inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
tour and see for yourself.
Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which
means that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the
road-tire interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation
will yield higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented
as RWD.
Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
John
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire
engine, transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and
then inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
tour and see for yourself.
Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which
means that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the
road-tire interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation
will yield higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented
as RWD.
Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
John
#437
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Ray O wrote:
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire
engine, transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and
then inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
tour and see for yourself.
Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which
means that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the
road-tire interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation
will yield higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented
as RWD.
Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
John
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire
engine, transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and
then inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
tour and see for yourself.
Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which
means that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the
road-tire interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation
will yield higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented
as RWD.
Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
John
#438
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Ray O wrote:
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire
engine, transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and
then inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
tour and see for yourself.
Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which
means that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the
road-tire interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation
will yield higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented
as RWD.
Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
John
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire
engine, transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and
then inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
tour and see for yourself.
Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which
means that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the
road-tire interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation
will yield higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented
as RWD.
Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
John
#439
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
> Ray O wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>
> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>
> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
> tour and see for yourself.
>
> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>
> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>
> John
I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
powertrains.
I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
FWD costs more than RWD.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#440
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
> Ray O wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>
> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>
> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
> tour and see for yourself.
>
> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>
> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>
> John
I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
powertrains.
I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
FWD costs more than RWD.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#441
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
> Ray O wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>
> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>
> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
> tour and see for yourself.
>
> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>
> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>
> John
I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
powertrains.
I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
FWD costs more than RWD.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#442
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
FWD vehicles require more off line preassembly, which is more expensive .
mike hunt
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:e5161$44d75f92$44a4a10d$26630@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:hjmdnXBdYcsK1krZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD
>>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say
>>again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an
>>assembly line if that is what you believe.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> I do not profess to be an expert on how assembly lines are operated, I
> only assume that the design engineers I spoke with had some expertise in
> that area.
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>
>
>
>
>
mike hunt
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:e5161$44d75f92$44a4a10d$26630@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:hjmdnXBdYcsK1krZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD
>>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say
>>again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an
>>assembly line if that is what you believe.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> I do not profess to be an expert on how assembly lines are operated, I
> only assume that the design engineers I spoke with had some expertise in
> that area.
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>
>
>
>
>
#443
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
FWD vehicles require more off line preassembly, which is more expensive .
mike hunt
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:e5161$44d75f92$44a4a10d$26630@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:hjmdnXBdYcsK1krZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD
>>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say
>>again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an
>>assembly line if that is what you believe.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> I do not profess to be an expert on how assembly lines are operated, I
> only assume that the design engineers I spoke with had some expertise in
> that area.
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>
>
>
>
>
mike hunt
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:e5161$44d75f92$44a4a10d$26630@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:hjmdnXBdYcsK1krZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD
>>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say
>>again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an
>>assembly line if that is what you believe.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> I do not profess to be an expert on how assembly lines are operated, I
> only assume that the design engineers I spoke with had some expertise in
> that area.
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>
>
>
>
>
#444
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
FWD vehicles require more off line preassembly, which is more expensive .
mike hunt
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:e5161$44d75f92$44a4a10d$26630@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:hjmdnXBdYcsK1krZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD
>>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say
>>again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an
>>assembly line if that is what you believe.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> I do not profess to be an expert on how assembly lines are operated, I
> only assume that the design engineers I spoke with had some expertise in
> that area.
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>
>
>
>
>
mike hunt
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message
news:e5161$44d75f92$44a4a10d$26630@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:hjmdnXBdYcsK1krZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD
>>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say
>>again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an
>>assembly line if that is what you believe.
>>
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> I do not profess to be an expert on how assembly lines are operated, I
> only assume that the design engineers I spoke with had some expertise in
> that area.
>
> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
> --
>
> Ray O
> (correct punctuation to reply)
>
>
>
>
>
#445
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:21:48 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE
>for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax
I am aware that the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg. I am also
aware that, if you sell a lot of cars that get (optimistically) 15 mpg
then you have to have some over 30 if you are going to meet the
target. I also know that neither RR nor Ferrari has ever sold a car
that was rated at 30 mpg by the EPA.
The Gas Guzzler tax in only indirectly related to the CAFE standards.
You can meet the CAFE standard and still have some vehicles hit by the
GGT. Conversely, you can miss the CAFE target and yet not pay the
GGT.
And, to reiterate my original point (which you wish to dismiss with a
wave of your hand), you can always simply miss the CAFE standard and
just pay the tax. No car maker *has* to meet the CAFE standard and
there are a number that never have.
>
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:5gbdd29r37j9unrpae7r4hj8i6532dj4o1@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:30:06 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are
>>>applied,
>>>I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Perhaps you could point me to the website for those 30mpg RRs and
>> Ferraris?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:klocd21lot1mpdeovm1rgvvmgs8uaufsgm@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:07:39 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is
>>>>>taking
>>>>>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to
>>>>>meet
>>>>>CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still
>>>>>building
>>>>>to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring
>>>>>down
>>>>>the build costs
>>>>>
>>>>>mike hunt
>>>>
>>>> It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below
>>>> cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has
>>>> to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on
>>>> small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to
>>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers
>>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE
>for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax
I am aware that the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg. I am also
aware that, if you sell a lot of cars that get (optimistically) 15 mpg
then you have to have some over 30 if you are going to meet the
target. I also know that neither RR nor Ferrari has ever sold a car
that was rated at 30 mpg by the EPA.
The Gas Guzzler tax in only indirectly related to the CAFE standards.
You can meet the CAFE standard and still have some vehicles hit by the
GGT. Conversely, you can miss the CAFE target and yet not pay the
GGT.
And, to reiterate my original point (which you wish to dismiss with a
wave of your hand), you can always simply miss the CAFE standard and
just pay the tax. No car maker *has* to meet the CAFE standard and
there are a number that never have.
>
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:5gbdd29r37j9unrpae7r4hj8i6532dj4o1@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:30:06 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are
>>>applied,
>>>I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Perhaps you could point me to the website for those 30mpg RRs and
>> Ferraris?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:klocd21lot1mpdeovm1rgvvmgs8uaufsgm@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:07:39 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is
>>>>>taking
>>>>>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to
>>>>>meet
>>>>>CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still
>>>>>building
>>>>>to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring
>>>>>down
>>>>>the build costs
>>>>>
>>>>>mike hunt
>>>>
>>>> It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below
>>>> cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has
>>>> to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on
>>>> small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to
>>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers
>>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
#446
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:21:48 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE
>for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax
I am aware that the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg. I am also
aware that, if you sell a lot of cars that get (optimistically) 15 mpg
then you have to have some over 30 if you are going to meet the
target. I also know that neither RR nor Ferrari has ever sold a car
that was rated at 30 mpg by the EPA.
The Gas Guzzler tax in only indirectly related to the CAFE standards.
You can meet the CAFE standard and still have some vehicles hit by the
GGT. Conversely, you can miss the CAFE target and yet not pay the
GGT.
And, to reiterate my original point (which you wish to dismiss with a
wave of your hand), you can always simply miss the CAFE standard and
just pay the tax. No car maker *has* to meet the CAFE standard and
there are a number that never have.
>
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:5gbdd29r37j9unrpae7r4hj8i6532dj4o1@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:30:06 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are
>>>applied,
>>>I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Perhaps you could point me to the website for those 30mpg RRs and
>> Ferraris?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:klocd21lot1mpdeovm1rgvvmgs8uaufsgm@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:07:39 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is
>>>>>taking
>>>>>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to
>>>>>meet
>>>>>CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still
>>>>>building
>>>>>to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring
>>>>>down
>>>>>the build costs
>>>>>
>>>>>mike hunt
>>>>
>>>> It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below
>>>> cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has
>>>> to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on
>>>> small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to
>>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers
>>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE
>for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax
I am aware that the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg. I am also
aware that, if you sell a lot of cars that get (optimistically) 15 mpg
then you have to have some over 30 if you are going to meet the
target. I also know that neither RR nor Ferrari has ever sold a car
that was rated at 30 mpg by the EPA.
The Gas Guzzler tax in only indirectly related to the CAFE standards.
You can meet the CAFE standard and still have some vehicles hit by the
GGT. Conversely, you can miss the CAFE target and yet not pay the
GGT.
And, to reiterate my original point (which you wish to dismiss with a
wave of your hand), you can always simply miss the CAFE standard and
just pay the tax. No car maker *has* to meet the CAFE standard and
there are a number that never have.
>
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:5gbdd29r37j9unrpae7r4hj8i6532dj4o1@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:30:06 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are
>>>applied,
>>>I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Perhaps you could point me to the website for those 30mpg RRs and
>> Ferraris?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:klocd21lot1mpdeovm1rgvvmgs8uaufsgm@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:07:39 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is
>>>>>taking
>>>>>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to
>>>>>meet
>>>>>CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still
>>>>>building
>>>>>to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring
>>>>>down
>>>>>the build costs
>>>>>
>>>>>mike hunt
>>>>
>>>> It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below
>>>> cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has
>>>> to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on
>>>> small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to
>>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers
>>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
#447
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:21:48 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE
>for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax
I am aware that the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg. I am also
aware that, if you sell a lot of cars that get (optimistically) 15 mpg
then you have to have some over 30 if you are going to meet the
target. I also know that neither RR nor Ferrari has ever sold a car
that was rated at 30 mpg by the EPA.
The Gas Guzzler tax in only indirectly related to the CAFE standards.
You can meet the CAFE standard and still have some vehicles hit by the
GGT. Conversely, you can miss the CAFE target and yet not pay the
GGT.
And, to reiterate my original point (which you wish to dismiss with a
wave of your hand), you can always simply miss the CAFE standard and
just pay the tax. No car maker *has* to meet the CAFE standard and
there are a number that never have.
>
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:5gbdd29r37j9unrpae7r4hj8i6532dj4o1@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:30:06 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are
>>>applied,
>>>I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Perhaps you could point me to the website for those 30mpg RRs and
>> Ferraris?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:klocd21lot1mpdeovm1rgvvmgs8uaufsgm@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:07:39 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is
>>>>>taking
>>>>>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to
>>>>>meet
>>>>>CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still
>>>>>building
>>>>>to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring
>>>>>down
>>>>>the build costs
>>>>>
>>>>>mike hunt
>>>>
>>>> It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below
>>>> cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has
>>>> to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on
>>>> small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to
>>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers
>>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE
>for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax
I am aware that the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg. I am also
aware that, if you sell a lot of cars that get (optimistically) 15 mpg
then you have to have some over 30 if you are going to meet the
target. I also know that neither RR nor Ferrari has ever sold a car
that was rated at 30 mpg by the EPA.
The Gas Guzzler tax in only indirectly related to the CAFE standards.
You can meet the CAFE standard and still have some vehicles hit by the
GGT. Conversely, you can miss the CAFE target and yet not pay the
GGT.
And, to reiterate my original point (which you wish to dismiss with a
wave of your hand), you can always simply miss the CAFE standard and
just pay the tax. No car maker *has* to meet the CAFE standard and
there are a number that never have.
>
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:5gbdd29r37j9unrpae7r4hj8i6532dj4o1@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:30:06 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are
>>>applied,
>>>I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Perhaps you could point me to the website for those 30mpg RRs and
>> Ferraris?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>>news:klocd21lot1mpdeovm1rgvvmgs8uaufsgm@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:07:39 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is
>>>>>taking
>>>>>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to
>>>>>meet
>>>>>CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still
>>>>>building
>>>>>to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring
>>>>>down
>>>>>the build costs
>>>>>
>>>>>mike hunt
>>>>
>>>> It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below
>>>> cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has
>>>> to do with it.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on
>>>> small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to
>>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers
>>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
#448
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:44:03 -0500, "Ray O"
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>>
>> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
>> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
>> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>>
>> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
>> tour and see for yourself.
>>
>> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
>> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
>> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
>> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>>
>> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
>> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>>
>> John
>
>I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
>myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
>assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
>powertrains.
>
>I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
>FWD costs more than RWD.
Mike is long on brash statements and short on explanations and
supporting evidence.
There was a time when he might have thrown out some BS explanation
only to be skewered with solid evidence refuting his outlandish claim.
Now he just acts like it is beneath his dignity to support any claim
he makes.
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>>
>> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
>> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
>> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>>
>> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
>> tour and see for yourself.
>>
>> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
>> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
>> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
>> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>>
>> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
>> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>>
>> John
>
>I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
>myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
>assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
>powertrains.
>
>I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
>FWD costs more than RWD.
Mike is long on brash statements and short on explanations and
supporting evidence.
There was a time when he might have thrown out some BS explanation
only to be skewered with solid evidence refuting his outlandish claim.
Now he just acts like it is beneath his dignity to support any claim
he makes.
#449
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:44:03 -0500, "Ray O"
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>>
>> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
>> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
>> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>>
>> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
>> tour and see for yourself.
>>
>> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
>> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
>> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
>> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>>
>> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
>> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>>
>> John
>
>I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
>myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
>assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
>powertrains.
>
>I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
>FWD costs more than RWD.
Mike is long on brash statements and short on explanations and
supporting evidence.
There was a time when he might have thrown out some BS explanation
only to be skewered with solid evidence refuting his outlandish claim.
Now he just acts like it is beneath his dignity to support any claim
he makes.
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>>
>> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
>> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
>> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>>
>> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
>> tour and see for yourself.
>>
>> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
>> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
>> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
>> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>>
>> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
>> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>>
>> John
>
>I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
>myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
>assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
>powertrains.
>
>I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
>FWD costs more than RWD.
Mike is long on brash statements and short on explanations and
supporting evidence.
There was a time when he might have thrown out some BS explanation
only to be skewered with solid evidence refuting his outlandish claim.
Now he just acts like it is beneath his dignity to support any claim
he makes.
#450
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:44:03 -0500, "Ray O"
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>>
>> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
>> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
>> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>>
>> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
>> tour and see for yourself.
>>
>> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
>> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
>> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
>> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>>
>> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
>> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>>
>> John
>
>I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
>myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
>assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
>powertrains.
>
>I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
>FWD costs more than RWD.
Mike is long on brash statements and short on explanations and
supporting evidence.
There was a time when he might have thrown out some BS explanation
only to be skewered with solid evidence refuting his outlandish claim.
Now he just acts like it is beneath his dignity to support any claim
he makes.
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:PyKBg.3638$rd1.3484@trnddc01...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles?
>>
>> They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine,
>> transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then
>> inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside.
>>
>> If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a
>> tour and see for yourself.
>>
>> Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means
>> that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire
>> interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield
>> higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD.
>>
>> Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides
>> behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids".
>>
>> John
>
>I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider
>myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of
>assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD
>powertrains.
>
>I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why
>FWD costs more than RWD.
Mike is long on brash statements and short on explanations and
supporting evidence.
There was a time when he might have thrown out some BS explanation
only to be skewered with solid evidence refuting his outlandish claim.
Now he just acts like it is beneath his dignity to support any claim
he makes.