Sorry to say it but, no, not unless you build a true monster-big inch small block or big block with turbos, it would take a ton of power to overcome a 1000lb weight difference, in my opinion borderline streetable power, not to mention half the cost of a new Z06 in the engine bay, no thanks.

 

Actually the weight difference in the new Z0-6 would be 1800lbs with a target weight of 2900lbs not to mention the huge aerodynamic penalty.

 

I agree 100%. This doesn't have to be a total ground up vehicle either. There are plenty of parts/pieces already in production that would get this done with minimal R&D. I wonder if they realize how important the grassroots connections are with enthusiasts.

 

They apparently don't as they ran SVT on a shoestring budget while sinking 13 Billion in Jaguar in a futile attempt to compete against BMW and Mercedes and failed miserably in the process...

 

I hate to break it to you, but that aint just Ford "bull**** propaganda." I dare you to do a quick online search, or better yet, pick up any one of the dozen or so financial rags that have recently published stories on this issue.

Do you know why Ford has lost half its market share? Its because they have ~$2,000 worth of "Legacy Costs" (pension/buyout packages/early retirement expenses) on every vehicle they produce. They cannot compete with foreign automakers who employ NON-UNION employees in places like Georgia and Alabama. Ask the Toyota execs- they'll tell you why they and others like Kia, Hyundai, and others have been building manufacturing facilities in the south at an incredible clip- less union influence.

Even though the big 3's auto quality has vastly improved and closed the Jap gap over the last 10-15 years, they cant and won't be able to be financially competitive with foriegn companies for a long time. Period.


ETA: I feel for folks who are getting hammered by the tough fianancial times with big auto, don't get me wrong. Tim makes the free market point though, and that is "let the market decide." That is exactly what people have been doing, and that exactly why problems are looming for Ford and GM.

 

I'm a financial analyst, so I understand the numbers very well but I hate to break it to you, but they wouldn't have an issue if they sold more cars. ie: spread their fixed costs over a greater number of units. At 71% Ford has the lowest capacity utilization of the entire auto industry (while Toyota, Nissan and Honda are at full capacity) and due to their antiquated plants they can't produce enough of the few names that sell well (Mustang) That inefficiency is much greater than the legacy costs and they are forced to cheapen their products even more but the consumers can't be fooled anymore especially if they have experienced other vastly superior competitive products. Do a comparison between the Camry and the antiquated Taurus and even some newer Ford products. Their competitors have flexible manufacturing and don't really care if a certain model isn't as hot as others or have seasonal fluctuations in demand. Bottom line is Ford is trying to push vehicles that consumers don't' want while Toyota for example produces and sells vehicle on a just in time basis. The net result is when you review Ford financials, you can only conclude that if they were an airline, they would have been in Chapter 11 2 years ago. If they're lucky, the Chinese will buy Ford for a few Billion (just like they did with IBM's computer division) and move their HO to Beijing. When you look at capitalization, Ford 15B, GM 19B (American), DCX 56B (German), Toyota 196B, Honda 131B, Nissan/Renault 65B Japanese, the old American auto industry is dead.

TB

TB

 

"government interference"?

I thought the discussion point was unions...

 

That's another problem with the auto industry. Almost every country have some measures in place to protect their auto industry. The Germans do, the French government and certainly the Japanese. A few years ago, a German politician commented that they would never allow the Asians to decimate their auto industry like they did in the US. When Lee Iaccoca while a Chrysler tried to buy BMW in the 80s, the deal was blocked. In Japan the US companies were never allowed to exceed 2% of their market. Why do many imported cars sell at a lower price, some significantly, than they do in their own markets?

Competition is good but a concerted effort to wipe out an industry in the largest auto market in the world is not.

TB

 

Good deal, maybe I'm just suprised that a financial analyst would pin such a critical and widely accepted financial flaw on "bull**** company propaganda."

 

Why should the .gov need to step in to "protect" the US auto industry? Thats BS. The big 3 auto manufacturers failed to identify problems decades ago, and to come up with subsequent fixes to problems. Thats a market issue, not a govt issue.

There is no concerted effort to wipe out our auto industry, rather the Japs have identified tremendous opportunities left on the table by grossly inefficient manufacturers. They are building vehicles in the US and paying US workers to manufacture them - and all the while making a buttload of moola doing it. You make it sound as if Imperial Japan is subsidizing a big 3 takeover or something, and thats just not true.

 

That's not the point. The legacy costs are a result not the cause and the real problem is the dramatic drop in sales. Fixed costs only become an issue when they increase as a percentage of revenue. If Ford had maintained its revenues, the media and their executives wouldn't even be talking about Legacy costs. Same thing goes for Toyota, as long as they maintain revenues, in 20-30 years pensions won't be a real issue. They will only be part of their cost of doing business and therefore should be manageable.

 

My comments related more to the protection of manufacturing in the US and in particular with China. You couldn't build a single vehicle in the US without Chinese sourced components. I just read a report that the US military is becoming increasingly dependant on a multitude of parts and products from China. Chinese economic interests are very closely tied in with their long-term strategic goals.

 

You made his point - Sales went down and the companies Legacy costs are dragging it down, like an anvil around the neck of a drowning man. There have been dozens of these discussions here before. The union fans take credit for everything prior and blame todays problems on someone else. It gets kinda old.

The reality is that the big 3 are and were paying WAY too much in salary and lifetime benefits to maintain a supportable business model. Far too much of their cash was being spent on Salary and benefits for Joe union making $30 an hour standing in one place working an impact wrench or a screw driver or a rubber mallet.

You can blame other people and wrap it in all the propaganda you want but the facts are that the companies are losing money from declining market share and the employees are paid WAY more than market in Salary and lifetime benefits. The companies cant get away form the contracts fast enough to save the business and the unions would rather destroy the company than give in to the "man".

Just my opinion ...

As far as the original point of the thread - its not a productrion vehicle its a SHOW vehicle made up from Ford racing shelf parts ...

 

Unions can only exist with the support of the government.

Companies should be free to fire the entire union (like Reagan firing all the air traffic controllers) or refuse to hire union employees. That's the free market at work. When the government prevents that from happening, that's government interference with the free market economy.

And that, my friends, is what we call socialism. We pretend like we are still a free market economy, but the government's social engineering touches every sector of society -- minimum wage laws, welfare payments, progressive tax rates, compulsory health insurance, farm price supports, subsidized housing, subsidized insurance, rent controls, mandatory family leaves, . . . The free market economy died with The New Deal.

 

Thanks FDR!