|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 [4] 5 |
|
|
notyper
 |
|
Haven't seen any swapping of heads on the VQ37 CarPhreakD.
However, a Cosworth modified VQ35 will pump out an easy 400 crank hp on 91 octane (head and cam mods in particular). And there are some guys running 3.8 or 4 liter strokers versions of the old motors pumping out about that much or more without spending $12-$15k with Cosworth. All those motors tend to peak before 8000 rpm though.
However, the VQ37 is pumping out as much as 350 hp from the factory and there is about 30+ hp available from easy bolt ons (intake, exhaust, tuning). Power peaks around 7000 rpm and then holds flat to well past 7500. And that's without being able to tune the VVEL system yet. I suspect that we'll see well over 400 hp crank once that is available. Not bad without touching the internals. I suspect, from what I hear, that this may be the last hurrah for Nissan's high output V6s. Hope not.
SC
|
CarmB
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
.....
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
Yeah, the original NSX was gutless, so was the ITR, a bunch or porsches and every racing car out there... Its more usable to the mind numbed masses because they don't have to shift as often and continue to text and cannot be bothered with understanding what it means to not get behind the curve. That kind of knowledge has no other practical purpose. Wait, you get a Cessan Cardinal fully loaded after of center and you really wan't to understand why you don't want to get behind the power curve.
You might want to read a little more thouroughly about the block as to my point, but SC then and dropped a couple ways they have been decreasing the quality of engine blocks.
|
Honda Johnny Come Lately.... ever heard of CVCC? How about the design of the R engine (maximum pumping efficiency)? What do you think VTEC is all about? Hint.. maximizing efficiency across the RPM range.
Honda is about maximum efficiency. If power is a byproduct, then so be it. In fact, in racing, volume and boost are restricted, so if you can come up with a better mouse trap to extract power from the engine and the ruling powers (and GM) don't object to it... you WIN.... Vide Honda turbo F1 in the 90s.
Decreasing tolerances in the piston is perhaps a detriment for someone like Shawn who lives to push those engines into stratospheric power numbers.
But, if you would, read into how HMC/AHM are DECREASING the FRICTION of the block/piston by treating the cylinders and using updated piston rings.
HMC is going for fuel efficiency.
Now then.. today is Memorial Day so we did our typical 170 mile trip around SoCal to go to cementeries.. In the Crosstour we burnt about 7 gallons of gas, which at 4.40 a gallon is 30 bucks. This was with ECO ON half the time on the freeways and around town.
Wooops!
Trust me, I want efficiency. I don't care if my engine can not be tuned to 400bhp.
Or, if we can get rid of ObamaGasFiasco and gas comes down to 2.5 a gallon, then HELL, Shawn, I'm in your boat... gimme 400 bhp....
See?
|
Regarding fuel costs, it's simple math. As cars get more efficient, the oil companies will increase the price per gallon accordingly. This is all the math you need to know and be assured that any so-called explanations of why gas prices are spiking dramatically in the years ahead will be nothing more than PR spin.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
@Mr. Taggart
Since you think FoMoCo has done all the right things,
tell me this:
Is the DI Duratec engine in 2012 Ford Focus all-new?
or
does it still use an 'old' block?
|
Ok, so I penned practically a thesis paper response when VTEC siezed up on me so I am going to bullet point it for you.
(Koni too)
-Mulally was precient in seeing the looming corporate credit crunch when no one else did.
-Mulally did not take a bailout when Government Motors did and screwed bondholders who were rightful owners to assets and instead gave it union thugs, all while screwing the retirees of companies recently spun off by GM (see all Delco retirees who lost their pensions)
-Mulally surveyed the situation and analyzed the company's strenghts which lead to paring down the size of the company. Knowing your financial situation, company stregnths, and financial outlook makes you a good leader. Changing your strategic direction all the time(See Honda, See Acura, See NSX, See ILX)or succumbing to group think does not make for good management. Neither does not understanding that in tough financial times people do not what cheaper products, but maybe less or a smaller product than before but that will last longer.
-The equity markets seem to think that Mulally is doing a better job than Honda has since he joined Ford. Ford stock is up over 20% while Honda is down almost 4%.
-Ford has caught Honda on a gross margin basis which is pretty damn good.
-Koi wet his pants about a 150 million loss in Europe driven by significantly higher taxes and foreign exchange rates. Operationally they were profitable and gained market share while Honda lost market share. Who is more likely to be profitable in Europe in the long run?
-Koi also gets a hard on about doing business in China which is going to languish for at least the next two years. Koi why don't you google "China ghost cities" and see all the money spent over the past ten years to keep people employed. Lots of capital projects for towns that no one lives in. Ford will probably do ok where they do more business, like Asia, India, and South America.
-Do I care about the block in the new Focus? No. But I care about Honda becoming like every other car manufacturer touting lines like 'new' and 'all new' before even one vehicle has ever been built or sold. Bragging or having to tout future advancements was never part of Honda's DNA. The problem is that they have failed so miserably lately that they are becoming as bad as Government Motors: GM: See the new Camaro that will be out in three to four years. Honda: See the new NSX that will be out in three to four years. Honda USED to not have to try keep interest until other vehicles came out.
-At the end of the day Mulally has lapped Ito and his cronies back in Japan. He has laid out a clear strategy, financial goals, and vision and continues to lead his company in achieving it. Does that mean they produce vehicles I would want to personally own? No. Did I say they have done all the right things? No But does that mean I won't acknowledge that compared to what has happened at Honda and other companies that he has done a good job at what he was hired to do? No.
- I finally admire him to telling the truth about Hybrid's losing huge amounts on a per vehicle basis with batteries running between 13,000 and 15,000 a pop based on power. It is nice to see that he acknowledges the game being played to satisfy governments that have never run a business is costing Ford's investors (other companies as well) a loss of over 10,000 a vehicle. (And Koi, that is maybe why they don't push Hybrids)
You can go back to apologizing for Honda's recent woes now.
|
Haha.
So if investors in a country gamble on property the automotive industry is in trouble?
Don't look too far for an answer...
Do you really believe Toyota with about 4mio made hybrids has somehow managed a 40 billion loss on them?
Continue to preach and keep apologizing.
|
TonyEX
|
|
CarmB wrote:
...
Regarding fuel costs, it's simple math. As cars get more efficient, the oil companies will increase the price per gallon accordingly. This is all the math you need to know and be assured that any so-called explanations of why gas prices are spiking dramatically in the years ahead will be nothing more than PR spin.
|
I love it how many people talk about "The Gas Companies" as if THEY were the ones holding up the price.
Yeah.. it's always Da Man... Da Bad Capitalists, Da Greedy Ones, We need More Control and Regulation. Why they should have all the money, going out there an working their butts off while I sit on my ass watching Oprah and The View? Gimme! Gimme! I'll vote for you if you Gimme Dat Money... Down with Da Man.
MY ASS.
The price of gas is going up for the simple reason that we ARE NOT drilling. The EPA is NOT giving American Oil Producers the opportunity to drill in the US.. and as the Middle East is hosed a bit more than usual and the White House is blocking Canadian Oil... well, guess what? Oil futures go up because when you constrain the availability of a commodity... it's price goes?....
UP!
Ding! Ding! Ding! Head of the class.
The "Oil Companies" per se don't much give a damn because they're global and drilling wherever they can make money. And with the devaluation of the dollar their "dollar" profits have gone up.
Now, if we were allowed to drill in the US and take Canadian Oil then the price of gas would go down... yes... and we'd use more. So the "Oil Companies" would make less per gallon but make it up in volume.
And, if for some reason, we decided to use our Domestic Natural Gas for car fuel (like they do in other places) then guess what?
The "Oil Companies" would make money too.
This is NOT about the greed (or lack thereof ) of the Oil Companies, this is all about the intransigence, arrogance and unscientific dogma of the Imbeciles Running the American Left working to support the Power Grab by some Real Rich People (not the "Oil Companies") from Other Very Rich People.
And, no, don't start on the bullshit of the 1%. We're talking the 0.00000000000000001% here.
And, no, NOT the "Oil Companies". Leave them alone, welcome them back, right not they're moving to Brazil.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
CarmB wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
.....
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
Yeah, the original NSX was gutless, so was the ITR, a bunch or porsches and every racing car out there... Its more usable to the mind numbed masses because they don't have to shift as often and continue to text and cannot be bothered with understanding what it means to not get behind the curve. That kind of knowledge has no other practical purpose. Wait, you get a Cessan Cardinal fully loaded after of center and you really wan't to understand why you don't want to get behind the power curve.
You might want to read a little more thouroughly about the block as to my point, but SC then and dropped a couple ways they have been decreasing the quality of engine blocks.
|
Honda Johnny Come Lately.... ever heard of CVCC? How about the design of the R engine (maximum pumping efficiency)? What do you think VTEC is all about? Hint.. maximizing efficiency across the RPM range.
Honda is about maximum efficiency. If power is a byproduct, then so be it. In fact, in racing, volume and boost are restricted, so if you can come up with a better mouse trap to extract power from the engine and the ruling powers (and GM) don't object to it... you WIN.... Vide Honda turbo F1 in the 90s.
Decreasing tolerances in the piston is perhaps a detriment for someone like Shawn who lives to push those engines into stratospheric power numbers.
But, if you would, read into how HMC/AHM are DECREASING the FRICTION of the block/piston by treating the cylinders and using updated piston rings.
HMC is going for fuel efficiency.
Now then.. today is Memorial Day so we did our typical 170 mile trip around SoCal to go to cementeries.. In the Crosstour we burnt about 7 gallons of gas, which at 4.40 a gallon is 30 bucks. This was with ECO ON half the time on the freeways and around town.
Wooops!
Trust me, I want efficiency. I don't care if my engine can not be tuned to 400bhp.
Or, if we can get rid of ObamaGasFiasco and gas comes down to 2.5 a gallon, then HELL, Shawn, I'm in your boat... gimme 400 bhp....
See?
|
Regarding fuel costs, it's simple math. As cars get more efficient, the oil companies will increase the price per gallon accordingly. This is all the math you need to know and be assured that any so-called explanations of why gas prices are spiking dramatically in the years ahead will be nothing more than PR spin.
|
Our education system has just spoken. Is it any surprise that we need education reform? The price of gas responds to the law of supply and demand. Don't forget that there is a worldwide supply and demand, not just the in US. Speculators can driver the price of oil up, but for every speculator that bet the price is going up there is someone betting the price is going down.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Fan Koni wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
DrWhiner wrote:
@Mr. Taggart
Since you think FoMoCo has done all the right things,
tell me this:
Is the DI Duratec engine in 2012 Ford Focus all-new?
or
does it still use an 'old' block?
|
Ok, so I penned practically a thesis paper response when VTEC siezed up on me so I am going to bullet point it for you.
(Koni too)
-Mulally was precient in seeing the looming corporate credit crunch when no one else did.
-Mulally did not take a bailout when Government Motors did and screwed bondholders who were rightful owners to assets and instead gave it union thugs, all while screwing the retirees of companies recently spun off by GM (see all Delco retirees who lost their pensions)
-Mulally surveyed the situation and analyzed the company's strenghts which lead to paring down the size of the company. Knowing your financial situation, company stregnths, and financial outlook makes you a good leader. Changing your strategic direction all the time(See Honda, See Acura, See NSX, See ILX)or succumbing to group think does not make for good management. Neither does not understanding that in tough financial times people do not what cheaper products, but maybe less or a smaller product than before but that will last longer.
-The equity markets seem to think that Mulally is doing a better job than Honda has since he joined Ford. Ford stock is up over 20% while Honda is down almost 4%.
-Ford has caught Honda on a gross margin basis which is pretty damn good.
-Koi wet his pants about a 150 million loss in Europe driven by significantly higher taxes and foreign exchange rates. Operationally they were profitable and gained market share while Honda lost market share. Who is more likely to be profitable in Europe in the long run?
-Koi also gets a hard on about doing business in China which is going to languish for at least the next two years. Koi why don't you google "China ghost cities" and see all the money spent over the past ten years to keep people employed. Lots of capital projects for towns that no one lives in. Ford will probably do ok where they do more business, like Asia, India, and South America.
-Do I care about the block in the new Focus? No. But I care about Honda becoming like every other car manufacturer touting lines like 'new' and 'all new' before even one vehicle has ever been built or sold. Bragging or having to tout future advancements was never part of Honda's DNA. The problem is that they have failed so miserably lately that they are becoming as bad as Government Motors: GM: See the new Camaro that will be out in three to four years. Honda: See the new NSX that will be out in three to four years. Honda USED to not have to try keep interest until other vehicles came out.
-At the end of the day Mulally has lapped Ito and his cronies back in Japan. He has laid out a clear strategy, financial goals, and vision and continues to lead his company in achieving it. Does that mean they produce vehicles I would want to personally own? No. Did I say they have done all the right things? No But does that mean I won't acknowledge that compared to what has happened at Honda and other companies that he has done a good job at what he was hired to do? No.
- I finally admire him to telling the truth about Hybrid's losing huge amounts on a per vehicle basis with batteries running between 13,000 and 15,000 a pop based on power. It is nice to see that he acknowledges the game being played to satisfy governments that have never run a business is costing Ford's investors (other companies as well) a loss of over 10,000 a vehicle. (And Koi, that is maybe why they don't push Hybrids)
You can go back to apologizing for Honda's recent woes now.
|
Haha.
So if investors in a country gamble on property the automotive industry is in trouble?
Don't look too far for an answer...
Do you really believe Toyota with about 4mio made hybrids has somehow managed a 40 billion loss on them?
Continue to preach and keep apologizing.
|
As to your first comment I cannot make heads or tails of it; it appears to be a bunch of gibberish.
Let's think about the Hybrid math which I will break down for you.
Mulally was quoting for pure electric vehicles which have larger batteries. Seeing the GM Dolt is a money loser, the Nissan Leaf is a money loser I would have imagine that Toyota will lose money on their plug ins as well. And not every Toyta Hybrid sold is a pure electric vehicle, so they won't lose 40B on Hybrids.
But does the cars like the Prius and Hilander make a profit and if so how much? You have to look not only at the selling price but all of the R&D that went into the devlopment. You don't see this because R&D is a period costs recorded when the money was spent and not amortized over the life of the product life tooling is. If Hybrids were so profitable why would the manufacturers clip the amount of markup in the vehicles? How much of the approximately 5,300 price difference (comparable equipment) between a Highlander SE and Highlander Hybrid is due to additional costs? I do not not know if the techonolgy was so cheap they would drop the price and not decontent the vehicle.
I would be interested to see what light Honda AFVM can add to the subject.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
|
You could at very least read up the differences between a hybrid and an EV.
|
Double J
|
|
|
Ok I'll bite a little this time. I find it funny how you think the gas price is so high. Have you heard of the Koch brothers and their companies. It's a good research topic. Also correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the governor of Nebraska opposed to the route proposed for the Keystone XL due to that aquifer. He is a right wing politician is he not? I'm not a lefty just saying.
|
CarmB
|
|
TonyE wrote:
CarmB wrote:
...
Regarding fuel costs, it's simple math. As cars get more efficient, the oil companies will increase the price per gallon accordingly. This is all the math you need to know and be assured that any so-called explanations of why gas prices are spiking dramatically in the years ahead will be nothing more than PR spin.
|
I love it how many people talk about "The Gas Companies" as if THEY were the ones holding up the price.
Yeah.. it's always Da Man... Da Bad Capitalists, Da Greedy Ones, We need More Control and Regulation. Why they should have all the money, going out there an working their butts off while I sit on my ass watching Oprah and The View? Gimme! Gimme! I'll vote for you if you Gimme Dat Money... Down with Da Man.
MY ASS.
The price of gas is going up for the simple reason that we ARE NOT drilling. The EPA is NOT giving American Oil Producers the opportunity to drill in the US.. and as the Middle East is hosed a bit more than usual and the White House is blocking Canadian Oil... well, guess what? Oil futures go up because when you constrain the availability of a commodity... it's price goes?....
UP!
Ding! Ding! Ding! Head of the class.
The "Oil Companies" per se don't much give a damn because they're global and drilling wherever they can make money. And with the devaluation of the dollar their "dollar" profits have gone up.
Now, if we were allowed to drill in the US and take Canadian Oil then the price of gas would go down... yes... and we'd use more. So the "Oil Companies" would make less per gallon but make it up in volume.
And, if for some reason, we decided to use our Domestic Natural Gas for car fuel (like they do in other places) then guess what?
The "Oil Companies" would make money too.
This is NOT about the greed (or lack thereof ) of the Oil Companies, this is all about the intransigence, arrogance and unscientific dogma of the Imbeciles Running the American Left working to support the Power Grab by some Real Rich People (not the "Oil Companies") from Other Very Rich People.
And, no, don't start on the bullshit of the 1%. We're talking the 0.00000000000000001% here.
And, no, NOT the "Oil Companies". Leave them alone, welcome them back, right not they're moving to Brazil.
|
Time will tell. This scenario is something that will play out in the next 10 years as we see a major shift towards far more efficient technology. But it is naive to imagine that the oil companies are helpless in all of this.
It is especially foolish to argue, as you clearly are, that this is all Obama's fault. Basically all you are doing is switching one villain for another, i.e. claiming the poor oil companies are victims in all of this and the conspiracy argument should be shifted over to Obama instead.
I'm not sure how it works in the US but here in Canada there is no evidence that there is any competition on price. When prices change in a specific market, it's pretty much across the board. Oil companies will charge whatever they think the market will bear, which is understandable. When individual consumers are using far less fuel, they can handle higher prices per litre (gallon, whatever). Explaining higher prices, if market conditions make them viable, is child's play.
The greatest pressure on oil companies to hold the line on prices has been to avoid bringing the economy to its knees, which is bad for everyone all around. Yet if you can travel the same distance with half the fuel, you can budget for higher prices in so much as you're really not paying more to travel that distance.
By the way supply is a controllable element to all of this and as such if it is in the best interests of oil suppliers to constrain supply, by whatever means, they will, as the situation dictates. It is highly unlikely that they would take steps to create a situation in which supply was ample if they deemed that market conditions would allow for higher prices. In fact, why would they. If they can make the same money off of less oil production, it only makes sense that they will do just that. They project how much oil the market needs and endeavour to produce as much as they think is in their best interests, all factors considered. In other words, if producing X makes them the most profit, that's what they will target. The last thing they are going to want to do is overproduce, hence driving down price and of course diminishing their margin.
There is nothing nefarious about that. It's just simple business process. Really, I can't fathom why oil producers would entirely ignore how much fuel their customers are using in planning ahead. After all, at the end of the day it's how much product the refineries are producing that dictates what will be available to the market. The producers control how much those refineries pump out, though of course there are factors beyond their control that have some impact.
Still, if consumers use less fuel - and we will collectively do just that in the years ahead - oil producers will pump out less fuel in response. The degree to which they do that will dictate supply. You can't force an oil producer to bring more refineries on line or stop that producer from shutting down an existing refinery, in a free market system. As such, supply is, in some fashion, controlled by the producer.
I don't buy that oil producers have pretty much no say regarding the supply of fuel. They have a lot of say and if they determine that market conditions allow them to improve profit margin, they will naturally pursue that improvement. It's what businesses do and it would be naive to expect otherwise.
Besides, you are mistaken in thinking that if there is savings to a producer, that savings would automatically be passed onto the consumer. There are business scenarios in which prices have been lowered to generate more volume, sure, but if a producer can enjoy a 50 per cent mark-up instead of let's say 40 per cent, then 50 per cent it is. Consider that if oil producers, by delivering cheaper fuel, lower their profit margin, this makes no sense. If a customer can be charged X for 100 litres of fuel instead of that same X for 200 litres, what producer would want the same revenue yet have to pump out twice as much product to get it. If consumers use a lot less fuel yet the oil producers can compensate by charging a lot more for their product, it doesn't get any better as business models go. I'm sure, for example, that Apple would love to increase the price of their iPhone from let's say $500 to $1,000, yet sell half as many. Revenue would remain the same yet costs would be cut in half. Oil producers have a chance to do something along those lines in the next few years, i.e. sell half as much product yet bring in just as much revenue. Keeping the cost of fuel down and hence motivating consumers to use a lot more of it by opting for less efficient vehicles, does not benefit oil producers. Quite the opposite.
Like they say, follow the money.
The reason why Apple can't just double the price on their iPhone and sell half as many is that due to competition on price from other smartphone manufacturers, it wouldn't work that way. Doubling the price of the iPhone would kill sales more or less entirely. Yet since all oil producers charge more or less the same price in a particular market, for them if we find ourselves using half as much fuel, the oil producers could charge twice as much yet be drawing the same amount from our budgets, hence allowing it to happen without a lot of protest. If it was costing X to fuel up and it's still costing that same X, oil producers know we could afford to pay it because we have been already.
If you want an automotive example, it would be as if GM could double the MSRP on the Cruz yet sell about half as many. They would do it in a heartbeat.
Unlike GM and Apple, oil producers are going to be in a position to do just that. I happen to think they control enough of this process to bring about that scenario. There is no downside for the oil producers and as such, I consider it probable that it's going to happen.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Double J wrote:
Ok I'll bite a little this time. I find it funny how you think the gas price is so high. Have you heard of the Koch brothers and their companies. It's a good research topic. Also correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the governor of Nebraska opposed to the route proposed for the Keystone XL due to that aquifer. He is a right wing politician is he not? I'm not a lefty just saying.
|
First off, On November 22, 2011, the governor of Nebraska signed two bills that enacted a compromise agreed upon with the pipeline builder to move the route, and approved up to US$2 million in state funding for an environmental study.
So that takes care of that...
Now then..
The Very Rich People are neither Progressive nor American Liberal (conservative).
They are really Very Very Very Rich and they _are_ the POLITY.
Obama is just one clueless demagogue that has gone too far too fast. If he'd shut his mouth more often, used his head and been more pragmatic then the economy would be on the mend and Soros would be far richer, the Real Money would have advanced farther and no one would be the wiser.
However, Obama and Pelosi are so incredibly arrogant that they overstepped and really pissed normal people off.
I think the Kotch brothers are more aligned with the interests of the US, they are industrialists... BUT, I don't believe they are the ones running the show because their fortune is dwarfed by the Real Money....
I honestly think it's the global bankers that are running the show to their own enrichment. As it now stands,
Soros is a banker.
Thus, I think that Soros is more sinister than the Koch as his financial interests are aligned with the global banking system... What we are seeing is the extension of their powers.
Oh well, we better stop before we hijack this thread.
|
Double J
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Double J wrote:
Ok I'll bite a little this time. I find it funny how you think the gas price is so high. Have you heard of the Koch brothers and their companies. It's a good research topic. Also correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the governor of Nebraska opposed to the route proposed for the Keystone XL due to that aquifer. He is a right wing politician is he not? I'm not a lefty just saying.
|
First off, On November 22, 2011, the governor of Nebraska signed two bills that enacted a compromise agreed upon with the pipeline builder to move the route, and approved up to US$2 million in state funding for an environmental study.
So that takes care of that...
Now then..
The Very Rich People are neither Progressive nor American Liberal (conservative).
They are really Very Very Very Rich and they _are_ the POLITY.
Obama is just one clueless demagogue that has gone too far too fast. If he'd shut his mouth more often, used his head and been more pragmatic then the economy would be on the mend and Soros would be far richer, the Real Money would have advanced farther and no one would be the wiser.
However, Obama and Pelosi are so incredibly arrogant that they overstepped and really pissed normal people off.
I think the Kotch brothers are more aligned with the interests of the US, they are industrialists... BUT, I don't believe they are the ones running the show because their fortune is dwarfed by the Real Money....
I honestly think it's the global bankers that are running the show to their own enrichment. As it now stands,
Soros is a banker.
Thus, I think that Soros is more sinister than the Koch as his financial interests are aligned with the global banking system... What we are seeing is the extension of their powers.
Oh well, we better stop before we hijack this thread.
|
I disagree with you but I agree to stop.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Fan Koni wrote:
You could at very least read up the differences between a hybrid and an EV.
|
You could maybe try and articulate a valid defense to my rebuke of your original criticisms but that would mean you would have to post a coherent thought, which is obviously beyond your skill set.
Maybe you could enlighten me on why Ford's stock price continues to be higher than Honda's since Mulally took over or how about enlighten me which company's market share is increasing or explain the effectiveness of Honda's marketing efforts.
|
P54
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Fan Koni wrote:
You could at very least read up the differences between a hybrid and an EV.
|
You could maybe try and articulate a valid defense to my rebuke of your original criticisms but that would mean you would have to post a coherent thought, which is obviously beyond your skill set.
Maybe you could enlighten me on why Ford's stock price continues to be higher than Honda's since Mulally took over or how about enlighten me which company's market share is increasing or explain the effectiveness of Honda's marketing efforts.
|
It is always easier to climb from rock bottom. Ford stocks were almost worth nothing. What if they had been hit by the natural disasters on top of that. And the disaster vehicle Ford Exploder was the most traded vehicle for cash for clunkers, I guess that sold them some new cars.
Can you tell me why Ford jet is lackluster and their motorbikes are losers as well as why they can't make power equipment. Honda raced Ford in Japan in his youth and the guy grew up and is way ahead of Ford in anything with an engine, whether on ground or in the air, or on two legs for that matter.
Yes Ford has marketing but Honda has the products and without Honda most other vehicles would be made the same way they were before Honda entered the scene.
No wonder Ford calls Honda for "the Japanese behemoth". It is just silly to look at market share comparison in a time when a company has been hit by several natural disasters as well as as a media storm. Wonder who backed the media in this? Not hard to guess is it. You know the companies with the good marketing. So easy to prey when someone is hurt.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Fan Koni wrote:
You could at very least read up the differences between a hybrid and an EV.
|
You could maybe try and articulate a valid defense to my rebuke of your original criticisms but that would mean you would have to post a coherent thought, which is obviously beyond your skill set.
Maybe you could enlighten me on why Ford's stock price continues to be higher than Honda's since Mulally took over or how about enlighten me which company's market share is increasing or explain the effectiveness of Honda's marketing efforts.
|
The stock price now is it?
You are comparing very different companies with very different equity structures.
Ford has almost been a penny stock in 2009, until recently they had no equity in the company.
Then again if you compare the Itos time from 2009 to pre earthquake time you would have to give alot of credit!
I wonder why you didnt compare this timeframe.
Even if you just compare 2012 - FoMoCo stocks dont look good.
Then on market share growth.
For you, of course only the US since Ford is not international; don't "wet your pants" when you see the may figures!
Toyota and Honda are very strong. Ford not so much.
|
DCR
|
|
|
What is your definition of "international"?
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Ford makes ~90% of its profit in North America.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
unfortunately, many also worried about FoMoCo's [downside] international exposure.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Fan Koni wrote:
Ford makes ~90% of its profit in North America.
|
Honda North American Operating Income 223B yen fiscal year 2012
Honda Japan Operating LOSS 110B yen fiscal 2012
Honda North American Unit sales 1.323 million sales FY 2012
Honda Japan Unit sales 588,000 FY2012
Your move sporto.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
|
Has anyone made any money in JP for the last few quarters?
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Fan Koni wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Fan Koni wrote:
You could at very least read up the differences between a hybrid and an EV.
|
You could maybe try and articulate a valid defense to my rebuke of your original criticisms but that would mean you would have to post a coherent thought, which is obviously beyond your skill set.
Maybe you could enlighten me on why Ford's stock price continues to be higher than Honda's since Mulally took over or how about enlighten me which company's market share is increasing or explain the effectiveness of Honda's marketing efforts.
|
The stock price now is it?
You are comparing very different companies with very different equity structures.
Ford has almost been a penny stock in 2009, until recently they had no equity in the company.
Then again if you compare the Itos time from 2009 to pre earthquake time you would have to give alot of credit!
I wonder why you didnt compare this timeframe.
Even if you just compare 2012 - FoMoCo stocks dont look good.
Then on market share growth.
For you, of course only the US since Ford is not international; don't "wet your pants" when you see the may figures!
Toyota and Honda are very strong. Ford not so much.
|
Two things are evident from your repeated posts:
One English is not your first language so I will attribute your hard to follow thoughts.
Two you do not understand basic finance. Ford is not a penny stock and feel free to look up the definition.
Two you ripped Mulally so it is fair to look at how the stock has performed under his watch.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Has anyone made any money in JP for the last few quarters?
|
Honda US Q4 income 82B yen
Honda Japan 12B yen
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
|
http://world.honda.com/investors/library/presentation/2011/4q/2011-4q-all-e.pdf
|
Fan Koni
|
|
|
OK nice, so now be so fair and post the spread of Hondas international Profits BEFORE the Earthquake in JP!!
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
You are digging a bigger hole.
2008 FY US 6.3B yen operating income
Japan 4.9B yen op income
US higher in '09 '10 & '11
Keep reaching.....
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
You are digging a bigger hole.
2008 FY US 6.3B yen operating income
Japan 4.9B yen op income
US higher in '09 '10 & '11
Keep reaching.....
|
The dollar has been devalued since The Anointed One and The Helicopter Man took over.... by a Big Chunk.
American Honda is a BIG part of the profits for HMC.
Ergo... profit is Yen lower.
As they say.. there are statistics and there are lies...
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
Ford close 10.68 Jan 2009 2.48 Up 330%
Honda close 31.68 Jan 2009 21.81 up 45%
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
You are digging a bigger hole.
2008 FY US 6.3B yen operating income
Japan 4.9B yen op income
US higher in '09 '10 & '11
Keep reaching.....
|
The dollar has been devalued since The Anointed One and The Helicopter Man took over.... by a Big Chunk.
American Honda is a BIG part of the profits for HMC.
Ergo... profit is Yen lower.
As they say.. there are statistics and there are lies...
|
Which means US profits would be higher if the dollar was stronger or there were more US sourced parts or Honda hedged its cash flows.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Ford close 10.68 Jan 2009 2.48 Up 330%
Honda close 31.68 Jan 2009 21.81 up 45%
|
What is your baseline for this calculation?
2009?
1990?
Your numbers are meaningless unless you put a timeframe on them.
You see, you're using a sliding bias and are not incorporating all the numbers and factors that make your statistics valid and comparable.
The timeframe is crucial to understand both (a) the baseline number and (b) understand what factors were involved in the numbers you are quoting.
Let me give you a real number...
In Y2K, when I sold my CSCO at an average of 65 bucks per share, my basis cost was just over 1.50 because I had bought it by the truckload in the early/mid 90s.
Now, that's a statistic you can take to the bank -and the IRS.
A REAL number.
|
owequitit
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
.....
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
Yeah, the original NSX was gutless, so was the ITR, a bunch or porsches and every racing car out there... Its more usable to the mind numbed masses because they don't have to shift as often and continue to text and cannot be bothered with understanding what it means to not get behind the curve. That kind of knowledge has no other practical purpose. Wait, you get a Cessan Cardinal fully loaded after of center and you really wan't to understand why you don't want to get behind the power curve.
You might want to read a little more thouroughly about the block as to my point, but SC then and dropped a couple ways they have been decreasing the quality of engine blocks.
|
Honda Johnny Come Lately.... ever heard of CVCC? How about the design of the R engine (maximum pumping efficiency)? What do you think VTEC is all about? Hint.. maximizing efficiency across the RPM range.
Honda is about maximum efficiency. If power is a byproduct, then so be it. In fact, in racing, volume and boost are restricted, so if you can come up with a better mouse trap to extract power from the engine and the ruling powers (and GM) don't object to it... you WIN.... Vide Honda turbo F1 in the 90s.
Decreasing tolerances in the piston is perhaps a detriment for someone like Shawn who lives to push those engines into stratospheric power numbers.
But, if you would, read into how HMC/AHM are DECREASING the FRICTION of the block/piston by treating the cylinders and using updated piston rings.
HMC is going for fuel efficiency.
Now then.. today is Memorial Day so we did our typical 170 mile trip around SoCal to go to cementeries.. In the Crosstour we burnt about 7 gallons of gas, which at 4.40 a gallon is 30 bucks. This was with ECO ON half the time on the freeways and around town.
Wooops!
Trust me, I want efficiency. I don't care if my engine can not be tuned to 400bhp.
Or, if we can get rid of ObamaGasFiasco and gas comes down to 2.5 a gallon, then HELL, Shawn, I'm in your boat... gimme 400 bhp....
See?
|
Sorry Tony, but you are not correct.
In most NA applications, the power is increased precisely BECAUSE the efficiency is increased. They are not sometimes randomly linked together. You can deal with volumetric efficiency or thermal efficiency, but when either gets increased, the engine becomes more efficient (it either uses less energy to produce energy, or it makes use of a greater % of the energy available). That directly, and in turn increases power. It is hard to buy that Honda is 100% about efficiency when they are pulling the technology that allows their engines to be more efficient in nearly every regard other than emissions or CO2 performance. Things like DI might help offset that, but imagine what would be if they weren't pulling out all of the good stuff at the same time they are adding 1 or 2 incremental technologies...
Also, your assertions about tolerances are also incorrect. Not only do tighter tolerances make the engine more efficient, but it reduces variability from one to another, and it also increases longevity. It was the tight manufacturing tolerances (exceeding full blown race engines in some cases) that made Honda's reliably and efficiently run to well over 200-300K routinely.
As much as you will never convince me that pulling VE technology from an engine is going to improve efficiency, you will never convince me that looser tolerances are better in the end. There is too much reality in the way.
|
owequitit
|
|
P54 wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Fan Koni wrote:
You could at very least read up the differences between a hybrid and an EV.
|
You could maybe try and articulate a valid defense to my rebuke of your original criticisms but that would mean you would have to post a coherent thought, which is obviously beyond your skill set.
Maybe you could enlighten me on why Ford's stock price continues to be higher than Honda's since Mulally took over or how about enlighten me which company's market share is increasing or explain the effectiveness of Honda's marketing efforts.
|
It is always easier to climb from rock bottom. Ford stocks were almost worth nothing. What if they had been hit by the natural disasters on top of that. And the disaster vehicle Ford Exploder was the most traded vehicle for cash for clunkers, I guess that sold them some new cars.
Can you tell me why Ford jet is lackluster and their motorbikes are losers as well as why they can't make power equipment. Honda raced Ford in Japan in his youth and the guy grew up and is way ahead of Ford in anything with an engine, whether on ground or in the air, or on two legs for that matter.
Yes Ford has marketing but Honda has the products and without Honda most other vehicles would be made the same way they were before Honda entered the scene.
No wonder Ford calls Honda for "the Japanese behemoth". It is just silly to look at market share comparison in a time when a company has been hit by several natural disasters as well as as a media storm. Wonder who backed the media in this? Not hard to guess is it. You know the companies with the good marketing. So easy to prey when someone is hurt.
|
Ummm.... No, it isn't. It is FAR harder to climb up than to maintain, which is precisely why Honda is deep shit if they don't get it together soon.
Here is why:
Ford was loaded with debt. They actually still are, but they are paying it down rapidly because debt is bad. Like the American government, previous Ford strategy was to build cheap trucks with lots of profit in order to subsidize everything else. When that didn't work, they borrowed money. There was no need to invest in new technology, new factories or new production methods because they could rehash the same old crap, polish it up a bit and raise the price $5K. Much like our government has no clear or rational financial strategy, and can't see past the next election cycle, so to did Ford focus solely on the next quarter and maximizing short term gain. Sounds more and more like Honda everyday...
Not to mention the poor product choices made with their offshoot brands that managed to suck down billions of dollars that they never made back. You know, like the Ridgeline, Element, ZDX, Gen 1 RDX, Insight, CR-Z, Crosstour and RL?
Then, when the bottom finally fell out of the market, they had no competitive product, no competitive cost structure, no competitive manufacturing technology, no competitive workforce, and worse yet, no plan to fix it.
As much as I still think Ford has a really long way to go in a lot of areas, I can't deny that Mullaly was partly astute and very lucky. He knew that they needed a TON of cash to turn around. So he mortgaged literally everything, and the kitchen sink. He even mortgaged the "Ford" name to get the extra cash. Had he not been successful, the Ford family would have lost all rights to the business, such was the gamble.
You know that Ford was on the fence and motivated to do better, because post haste they were renewing factories, slashing costs the right way, creating new product, improving marketing, selling bad assets, and building a strategic plan to move forward. We are starting to see those fruits now, as cars like the Focus still lack in some areas, but manage to lead in others. 10 years ago, they were laughing stocks and were dead on arrival due to technological inferiority. Now, they can not only stand on par with the traditional stalwarts, but with select improvement in select areas would even dominate. I can assure that Ford's goal is not to stand on par, but to dominate.
Take the newest Focus vs Civic. I got an SEL the other week as a rental. Overall, it was a great little car. The interior felt high quality and absolutely BLEW the new Civic out of the water. It has soft touch materials, solid handles, nice feeling switchgear, good upholstery and the ambiance was far beyond where the 2012 Civic is. The car was solid as a rock, rode well, handled well, and was much firmer and less spongy than the Civic, but managed to be far quieter as well. I would term the ride/handling compromise about perfect for such a car. The doors were nicely weighted and felt far more solid than anything on any Civic, and the detailing was very good. Paint quality was good, fit and finish were good etc. The ONLY place I could find any kind of glaring fault was with the DCT transmission, which was HORRIBLE to drive. It slipped off the line, then hooked up, then hunted for gears, kicked down late and then too many gears etc. If they fixed that, it would have been at least on par with Honda. The engine wasn't the most refined, but it was decent, pulled well, and was quite flexible in its power delivery. It had good torque, decent top end, and a flat curve. It also did a good job of hiding its cheap car roots until you wound it out to above about 4.5K RPM. To be honest, if it weren't for the DCT, that would probably outrank the Civic as a total package as far as I am concerned. I still have reservations about Ford's long term quality (yet another uphill battle for them), but that is diminishing less because Ford is proving they are better and more because Honda is reducing quality to narrow the delta between them and Ford.
It will take far longer for Ford to restore confidence in their product, update all technology and build class leading product than it would for Honda to maintain their position. Climbing up is ALWAYS harder than staying up, because when you are already up, you have nearly every advantage on your side.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 [4] 5 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
