ford and nissan merger?

[chapnutz_#1]

chapnutz_#1- if you want a nice sports car get a 89-92 toyota supra stick turbo. it takes about 1500 dollars to get it to 600 hp from 200. and a suspension kit makes them the best bang for the buck. did it with my toyota, and your right not a vehicle in my town could run with me ( street legal vehicles) well i take that back my buddys 03 dodge creeped by. the corvettes, mustangs and 350z never could keep up. im not blowin nothin up yer arrses eather. 135 1/4 mile and went to 183 maxed

any supra is bad ass...but i would much rather have a machIV 93-98 last production model-the body is just pure sex with it's sleek lines and smooth curves

 

[Jay FX4]

In '98 I leased a 2wd Taco Prerunner. That truck was garbage, but I took a brochure for the Supra while I was at the dealership and I've wanted one ever since. I never owned one but I'm glad I don't live in Cali. The twin turbo wasn't sold there.

 

[LittleHorse]

seems like a lot of folks around here have never owned a Nissan.

Nissan is the one car manufacturer I've owned as many of as Ford's. I myself have owned a '99 Frontier, a 98 Maxima, a 95 and an 85 300ZX, a 280ZX, and a 280Z. My father-in-law has an '05 Frontier. All of these were/are excellent vehicles, quality built, reliable and in my opinion good looking. The only reason I sold the Frontier was because it got rear ended by a Thunderbird on the interstate and slammed against a concrete barrier.

I think Nissan and Ford could learn a lot from eachother. Nissan could learn a little about full size trucks and Ford could learn a lot about car chassis'. The Mustang may look ok (still not as good as a 370Z, better than a 350Z though) but it's a PIG in the weight department. They could have made the whole damn thing out of cast iron. A Bronco II weighs less, as does an early 90s Taurus. It's a disease plaguing the entire auto industry, but most heavily domestics. Think about how over the last twenty years we've seen leaps and bounds in horsepower, but mpg has changed very little, if any. You think the fact that a modern day Honda Civic weighs DOUBLE the original doesn't have anything to do with that? Or that most of our sports cars have gone from sub-3000lb to barely squeezing under 2 tons?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I think Nissan and Ford could learn a lot from eachother. Nissan could learn a little about full size trucks and Ford could learn a lot about car chassis'. The Mustang may look ok (still not as good as a 370Z, better than a 350Z though) but it's a PIG in the weight department. They could have made the whole damn thing out of cast iron. A Bronco II weighs less, as does an early 90s Taurus. It's a disease plaguing the entire auto industry, but most heavily domestics. Think about how over the last twenty years we've seen leaps and bounds in horsepower, but mpg has changed very little, if any. You think the fact that a modern day Honda Civic weighs DOUBLE the original doesn't have anything to do with that? Or that most of our sports cars have gone from sub-3000lb to barely squeezing under 2 tons?

Cars of yesteryear were much lighter thanks to the complete lack of concern for safety... Emissions are another thing, just because a car gets great milage doesn't mean it is a clean running engine... my brother's 1500lb '67 VW gets 45mpg with a carburated engine that has absolutly no emission controls. My 5000lb 2002 F-150 only gets 20mpg and produces a fraction of a fraction of the polution the old VW does.


People like different looks, personally I think the '10 Mustang is the best looking car in production right after the new Challenger.

Never been a Nissan fan, I don't see that changing either. I fit in my brother's old bug better than the 350Z (I think it was the 350 anyway, it might have been the other one) they had at the car show. Whatever it was there was no way I could do a long distance drive in it and still walk afterwards... not a selling feature for me. The Mustang is much more comfortable to sit in. The Titan felt decent, I think better than the Tundra but it would be down on my wish list after to the F-150, Ram and GMC. That was just by looking at them and playing with them, they don't let you drive them, and that was all I played with an the Nissan booth.

Ford cars have been ranked very competitivly with their Japanese compitition lately, I think they are back on the ball of how to make a car.

 

[jaymegriffiths]

Last time I talked to the guys at the dealer group I worked at they had not heard anything from Ford about a diesel option. Not saying it may not be in the works but they just had a seminar on the new F-150's and heard nothing about diesel.

I've been reading up a lot about the supposed 1/2 ton deisels, and from what ive heard, no diesels can be expected, but theres still hope. For fear of their heavy duty market depleting, i believe the Big three are holding out. I know the ford 4.4 tt diesel has been "shelfed, as a completed engine READY FOR PRODUCTION. I think problem is, everyone loves a deisel truck. they're just cool. but who's gonna pay 60, 70 or even 80 grand for a HD deisel for towing they're RV or whatever, when they can get a 1/2 ton for, oh say 45? Noone if they do a great jo and release some amazing gas sipping ass hauling v8 diesel, everyone will gobble them up and very few people will be getting into the 3/4 and 1 ton markets, where Big 3 can makes lotsa dough.
Quite honestly what i wanna see is the Raptor get a 4.4 tt. I would give an arm and leg for that sucka. Problem is if people keep buying 3/4 and 1 tonnes to pull they're 25 foot trailers that a 1/2 ton deisel could easily handle, why would the auto makers start offering 1/2 tonne diesel. From their persective it doesn't make sense. people and their need for over kill, combined with greedy oil company's and greedy auto maker CEO/ whatevers are causing a lot of trouble for the average joe.

I think everybody pulled the plug on them.

I think its more temporary. cannot say for sure what will happen... Im crossin my fingers!

I thought Ford scrapped, or at least put on hold, the diesel for the F-150. Wasn't it originally supposed to be available for the 09's?

the 4.4 is fully developed and ready to be put in a truck.

In '98 I leased a 2wd Taco Prerunner. That truck was garbage, but I took a brochure for the Supra while I was at the dealership and I've wanted one ever since. I never owned one but I'm glad I don't live in Cali. The twin turbo wasn't sold there.

i gotta friend who has a 97 taco and its very dependable. i dunno if this is relative cause i dont know when the taco was revamped or w/e

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I've been reading up a lot about the supposed 1/2 ton deisels, and from what ive heard, no diesels can be expected, but theres still hope. For fear of their heavy duty market depleting, i believe the Big three are holding out. I know the ford 4.4 tt diesel has been "shelfed, as a completed engine READY FOR PRODUCTION. I think problem is, everyone loves a deisel truck. they're just cool. but who's gonna pay 60, 70 or even 80 grand for a HD deisel for towing they're RV or whatever, when they can get a 1/2 ton for, oh say 45? Noone if they do a great jo and release some amazing gas sipping ass hauling v8 diesel, everyone will gobble them up and very few people will be getting into the 3/4 and 1 ton markets, where Big 3 can makes lotsa dough.

I think the bigger issue is people TRYING to pull their campers and whatever with a half ton truck and breaking things. Even with a half ton, it doesn't take much of a camper to get over your rating.

And the biggest issue yet, is the regular half tons are moving slow, adding to the price with a diesel won't help. Some dealerships were giving Powerstrokes away for the same price as a V-10 last summer just to keep them moving... nobody wanted to jump in line for $5-6/gallon to get the same or a little better milage as a V-10 that burned juice that was "only" $4/gallon.

 

[LittleHorse]

Cars of yesteryear were much lighter thanks to the complete lack of concern for safety...

You can make a car weigh less than 3600 lbs without compromising safety. It takes smarter design and use of materials, but it can be done, and it is done. Just not by domestic car makers that are struggling to survive as it is, without spending more money in engineering to make decent cars.

The biggest problem is that the heavier cars get, the more dangerous they get to the cars they collide with. So car makers just pudge it up a little more to pad their safety ratings without having to put some actual creative thought into the design.

The biggest danger is the DIFFERENCE in weight. If all cars were lighter, they would all be just as safe. The problem arises when your 2500lb Mazda Miata gets creamed by a 3700 tank of Ford Mustang.

Besides the safety, we are talking about cars that are supposed to be FAST, right?

Emissions are another thing, just because a car gets great milage doesn't mean it is a clean running engine... my brother's 1500lb '67 VW gets 45mpg with a carburated engine that has absolutly no emission controls. My 5000lb 2002 F-150 only gets 20mpg and produces a fraction of a fraction of the polution the old VW does.

Ok, so you've shown that the government has tightened emissions regulations since 1967???

A modern car with modern emissions controls is going to have a direct relationship between fuel economy and emissions. You burn twice as much fuel, you've got twice as much crap coming out of the tailpipe. The difference between '67 and 2002 is that there were different proportions of different kinds of crap, some kinds being worse than others. Year for year its virtually the same mix, pound for pound.

People like different looks, personally I think the '10 Mustang is the best looking car in production right after the new Challenger.

I think the '10 Mustangs look great. The Challenger does too. The Camaro looked good as a concept but it's un-grown on me for the production design.

I actually hated the design of the 350Z. Funny thing is, the 370Z didn't change that much, but it changed in all the right places and now it's dead sexy. And it's got bad ass technology too. Double wishbone and 4 link fully independent suspension instead of the garbage mcpherson struts and solid axles (sorry guys, great for trucks, shitty for a "sports car") most of the domestics are using. You can't even buy a Z now without a limited slip diff. And the only engine offered has more power than the Mustang GT.

Never been a Nissan fan, I don't see that changing either. I fit in my brother's old bug better than the 350Z (I think it was the 350 anyway, it might have been the other one) they had at the car show. Whatever it was there was no way I could do a long distance drive in it and still walk afterwards... not a selling feature for me. The Mustang is much more comfortable to sit in. The Titan felt decent, I think better than the Tundra but it would be down on my wish list after to the F-150, Ram and GMC. That was just by looking at them and playing with them, they don't let you drive them, and that was all I played with an the Nissan booth.

There's no way around not fitting in the car, but I'm not suggesting that they stick a Mustang logo on a 370Z with an all aluminum 4.6L. The platform is stretchable, they use the same platform for the 4-seat GTR and G37, two door and four door - a car hardly considered small.

I'm suggesting a stretched Z platform with similar headroom and legroom as a current model Mustang - with "modern" (that's tongue in cheek as the technology has existed in production use for 50 years) independent suspension and an all aluminum V8, weighing 3400lbs or less and giving up no measure of collision safety. But Nissan will have to build and design it because if Ford did it they'd have to get $80k to cut a profit.

Ford cars have been ranked very competitivly with their Japanese compitition lately, I think they are back on the ball of how to make a car.

Ford has definitely improved, and until I drive a few of the '10 and later models I have to withhold judgement. But there's a reason there's only ever been one exception to my rule of only buying their trucks. Most of what they made between the early 70s and mid '00s was 99% trash, periodically punctuated by a few cool models here and there like the SHO. Budget corner cutting and skimping on quality engineering has tarnished their name in my eyes and it's not going to go away overnight.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

You can make a car weigh less than 3600 lbs without compromising safety. It takes smarter design and use of materials, but it can be done, and it is done. Just not by domestic car makers that are struggling to survive as it is, without spending more money in engineering to make decent cars.

The biggest problem is that the heavier cars get, the more dangerous they get to the cars they collide with. So car makers just pudge it up a little more to pad their safety ratings without having to put some actual creative thought into the design.

The biggest danger is the DIFFERENCE in weight. If all cars were lighter, they would all be just as safe. The problem arises when your 2500lb Mazda Miata gets creamed by a 3700 tank of Ford Mustang.

Besides the safety, we are talking about cars that are supposed to be FAST, right?

Bulking up without any more thought put into it than that will not make things look better when they go thru crash testing, it will be worse. It has more weight to stop and only the crushing effect of itself to do it.

They could have done worse on the Mustang, the Challenger is over 4k.

They have to be somewhat remotely safe or they will not be legal for sale in the US, when talking about car design it has to be part of it.

Ok, so you've shown that the government has tightened emissions regulations since 1967???

A modern car with modern emissions controls is going to have a direct relationship between fuel economy and emissions. You burn twice as much fuel, you've got twice as much crap coming out of the tailpipe. The difference between '67 and 2002 is that there were different proportions of different kinds of crap, some kinds being worse than others. Year for year its virtually the same mix, pound for pound.

As a general rule of thumb you can either have power, fuel economy or cleaner emissions. To get more of one you have to get less of the other two. The original Civic came out back when there were next to nothing for emission laws, or crash testing, so a tin foil box with wheels and an carburated engine with points was fine and got great milage. The current Civic has much stiffer rules to play by.

I think the '10 Mustangs look great. The Challenger does too. The Camaro looked good as a concept but it's un-grown on me for the production design.

I actually hated the design of the 350Z. Funny thing is, the 370Z didn't change that much, but it changed in all the right places and now it's dead sexy. And it's got bad ass technology too. Double wishbone and 4 link fully independent suspension instead of the garbage mcpherson struts and solid axles (sorry guys, great for trucks, shitty for a "sports car") most of the domestics are using. You can't even buy a Z now without a limited slip diff. And the only engine offered has more power than the Mustang GT.

There's no way around not fitting in the car, but I'm not suggesting that they stick a Mustang logo on a 370Z with an all aluminum 4.6L. The platform is stretchable, they use the same platform for the 4-seat GTR and G37, two door and four door - a car hardly considered small.

I'm suggesting a stretched Z platform with similar headroom and legroom as a current model Mustang - with "modern" (that's tongue in cheek as the technology has existed in production use for 50 years) independent suspension and an all aluminum V8, weighing 3400lbs or less and giving up no measure of collision safety. But Nissan will have to build and design it because if Ford did it they'd have to get $80k to cut a profit.

Just out of curiocity what does a 370Z run costwise? I thought it was quite a bit more than a Mustang GT. That is what killed the last Camaro, it was too much $$ for what you got, a tad more would get you a 'Vette that would whoop the Camaro, or a Mustang that was still pretty spunky and while it had less power, invest the money difference into it and you would have a hotter car for it. Chevy (and Dodge) set themselves up for the same kind of defeat with the pricing on their new cars IMO, their V-6 cars cost about the same as a Mustang GT.

The Mustang is the only domestic sports car to still run a solid rear axle. The Camaro and Challenger both have fully independant rear suspensions. At one point the Cobra Mustangs had IRS too, I don't know if they still do or not.

The factory Mustang is a mortal person car, they have never meant to lock horns directly with high dollar sports cars. They don't even call them sports cars, but rather "Pony Cars". A fast looking car with above average performance and a price most anybody can afford has pretty much been their motto all along. Ford supports Shelby, Saleen, and Roush for the wilder stuff. You can order them from a Ford dealership certified for whichever company you choose and get the performance you want. It is kinda neat, you can also buy the parts from them (like superchargers) and have them installed on your run of the mill 'Stang too and still have a warrentee.

There is a reason so many other competitors have came and went but you can still go out and buy a new Mustang.

 

[rngrdngr]

any supra is bad ass...but i would much rather have a machIV 93-98 last production model-the body is just pure sex with it's sleek lines and smooth curves

yea but for a peice of junk they still cost 15k. However if you want to go through the stress my buddy bought a 95 supra twin turbo stick in excelent condition for 10k in japan. had to get it shipped and deal with lots of dmv,dot,bar, and epa crap. i love them to. supras are the only car i would drive thats not a muscle car.

 

[Will]

Air-cooled VWs don't get 45mpg. I've had several over the years. A bus will get less than 20mpg town or highway and a Beetle would be doing well to get 30mpg.

 

[LittleHorse]

Bulking up without any more thought put into it than that will not make things look better when they go thru crash testing, it will be worse. It has more weight to stop and only the crushing effect of itself to do it.

Thats only true if you're slamming against an immovable object, because crashing against a solid barrier in a test lab simulates an accident with another vehicle of identical mass. This is how a 2700lb sports car can get a 5 star crash rating just as easily as anything else. The truth is that 2700lb sports car wouldn't stand a chance against a luxury sedan. In a real world collision with another car, the heavier car is going to have a huge advantage.

They have to be somewhat remotely safe or they will not be legal for sale in the US, when talking about car design it has to be part of it.

I have a Miata that weighs 2500lbs, stock. Obviously it met safety standards or it wouldn't be here. And it still meets standards, as they're still selling the same model. I don't have any illusions about surviving a wreck with an Escalade, but I also ride a motorcycle. Obviously a 2 seat car with the wheelbase of a Bronco II is going to weigh less than something like a Mustang, but I don't see why 3400lbs wouldn't be a perfectly reachable goal. The 370Z weighs 3,232.

As a general rule of thumb you can either have power, fuel economy or cleaner emissions. To get more of one you have to get less of the other two. The original Civic came out back when there were next to nothing for emission laws, or crash testing, so a tin foil box with wheels and an carburated engine with points was fine and got great milage. The current Civic has much stiffer rules to play by.

Power (or at least it's tangible effect) and fuel economy are both directly influenced by weight, and emissions are influenced indirectly. The exact same engine with the exact same tuning in a car that weighs 20% less will accelerate faster (effectively more power), burn less fuel, and produce less emissions.

Just out of curiocity what does a 370Z run costwise? I thought it was quite a bit more than a Mustang GT. That is what killed the last Camaro, it was too much $$ for what you got, a tad more would get you a 'Vette that would whoop the Camaro, or a Mustang that was still pretty spunky and while it had less power, invest the money difference into it and you would have a hotter car for it. Chevy (and Dodge) set themselves up for the same kind of defeat with the pricing on their new cars IMO, their V-6 cars cost about the same as a Mustang GT.

The 370Z starts at $29,930, right at about $2k more than a Mustang GT, so about 7% more. They do run up to almost $40k as you pile on options like 14" brakes, 19" wheels, a rev-matching option for the 6 speed manual, leather seats, etc while the Mustang GT stops at about $36k for a convertible.

I agree on the Camaro/Firebird. Too much money for what you got, though now that they've depreciated I think they're decent cars. The Camaro's crappy interior is a deal breaker for me but I would have a hard time passing up a good deal on an '02 T/A WS6, as long as it wasn't that pewter color.

The Mustang is the only domestic sports car to still run a solid rear axle. The Camaro and Challenger both have fully independant rear suspensions. At one point the Cobra Mustangs had IRS too, I don't know if they still do or not.

well thats good to know I guess, though I hate Dodge far too much to ever find myself in a Challenger. I think it's probably the best looking of the modern pony cars (haven't seen a '10 Mustang in person yet) but that entire company's quality has never impressed me.

I know the current model Mustang chassis was at least designed to be readily adaptible to an IRS, because Ford felt that the Cobra IRS was a less-than-optimal and very costly retrofit to get it to work. When you think about the fact that there hasn't been a Japanese or German car with a solid rear axle since the mid 1980s, many sold for far cheaper than the Mustang...I have to wonder what's the holdup? Maybe offer it only on the GT, and let the high school girls with the V6's have the cheaper solid axle, since they're not likely to know the difference anyway.

 

[Jason]

Actually, unless it's a head on, you likely would survive. See, lighter vehicles still absorb energy in a collision but since they are more easily moved there is less total energy to absorb. That is why the newer, lighter vehicles are actually safer than the old boats that were built in the 70's. Big doesn't equal survival. Now if the suburbanites could get that down.

 

[351crownvic]

That fiesta is from the Australia! They should bring the Ausi line up over to the the US market. Merg with nissian... They already used the villager in the early to mid 90's. It was a nissian quest re-badged. Here check out this link and watch about the falcon and the G series... This thing rocks! Click on MEDIA CENTER, then under the video that starts playin click the test drive video. Then on the top right of the video I recomend playing clips 2 and 3!!!

http://www.ford.com.au/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1178841241534&pagename=FOA/DFYPage/Ford-FullwidthLegacy&site=FOA&c=DFYPage

 

[jaymegriffiths]

*totally unrelated to OP conversation. Anyone who says dodge sucks, just remember they have cummins. any 8000 pound truck that gets 30 MPG and can boot stomp most stock sports cars, AND tow a HUGE AZZ trailer to boot deserves respect in my books.

 

[fastpakr]

Any 8000 pound truck that gets 30 MPG and can boot stomp most stock sports cars, AND tow a HUGE AZZ trailer to boot deserves respect in my books.

And which 8000 pound truck are you referring to that gets 30mpg?