Posted on 04/20/2006 10:03:42 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder
I've been wondering for a while why GMC SUVs are priced at nearly twice what Ford Explorers are. Is there that much of a difference? They seem fairly indentical, but I haven't conducted a major research effort. I own a Ford Explorer Sport, and it's a dopey but functional piece of American metal which serves my needs fine. Comments?
Chevy had a really powerful, reliable 292 V6.
Ford still has better fuel injection.
One of the reasons Ford can use Toyota-patented technology on their hybrids is that Toyota is in turn allowed to use Ford-patented direct injection spark ignition technology on gas engines. That tech is one of the big reasons that the new Mazda CX7 and Mazdaspeed 6 are able to get 274 hp and 280 lb-ft out of a 2.3L I4 - and its torque curve is nice and flat - up to 95% of peak torque at redline.
I can.... :)
9 year old Taurus with the 3.0L Vulcan, AX4N transmission, 100k miles.
My most expensive repair? A noisy idler pulley. Total repair cost has been $200 over 9 years. Its never failed to start, its never stalled out, its never left me stranded anywhere. Trans pan was spotless on the last fluid change and the dino oil comes out looking almost good as new every 3k.
Great. Let's have a competition, then.
I'll take my Chevy (with a GM engine) and you can have your Ford with whatever hamster and wheel propulsion system they use. We'll drive the vehicles hard, practically abusing the hell out of them, and keep them running for a year without any scheduled maintenance.
I'll guarentee you that when all is said and done, my GM engine will still be running a good six months after your Ford engine has given up the ghost.
I'm not a mechanic by any stretch of the imagination, and the only Ford I've ever owned was one my wife brought into the household when we married. Frankly, it (a Taurus) was probably the worst car I've ever owned. Other than that, I've owned 4 Chevy's, a Honda, and a Datsun. But I stand by what I said: for a good part of the '80s, Ford had the better overall engine lineup. And, there are many Ford owners that can say the exact same thing about Ford that you said about Chevy (and vice versa) -- that they've never had a serious engine problem, or that you couldn't kill the engine. The Chevy 350 and the Ford 302, in no particular order, are the best engines I've ever driven.
However, I will say this: if I searched long and hard, I could find multiple consumer complaints and/or lawsuits that the Chevette and Corsica were the basis of. I don't know how many people had your experience with either, but plenty had bad experiences with one or the other (or both). Not saying that Ford's non-V8 lineup was any better (and you couldn't give me a Chrysler), but you won't convince me that either were anything other than below-average vehicles.
I have no interest in a domestic vehicle without a V8.
You do realize that the Vulcan is rated as one of the most reliable engines in existence, right? Somewhat crude and not very powerful, but I have never known anyone with engine problems on a Vulcan. In fact I've seen one run without any oil changes for over 50k miles without any significant damage (a good varnish, naturally).
I can't say the same thing about the poor schleps I know who got a Quad-4 from GM.
The weak points of the Taurus were the transmission pre-96, and the old 3.8L and the 3.4L Yamaha engines that were used in the past. You haven't been able to buy a 3.8L on one in over a decade, and the 3.4L was discontinued when the SHO was cancelled.
"However, I will say this: if I searched long and hard, I could find multiple consumer complaints and/or lawsuits that the Chevette and Corsica..."
Defending Ford, the company that brought us the Pinto (rolling blowtorch) and the Crown Victoria (rolling time bomb), by bringing up GM's failures? Occasionally, you might have a GM product with a defective shift lock (86-87 Chevette), or a bad suspension (late -80's Corsica), but at least they don't catch fire and incinerate you just because you turned the air conditioning on.
That doesn't even count the Ford products rigged to explode by Dateline NBC or 60 Minutes, either.
As for engines, I'm not a real horsepower and foot-pounds-of-torque kinda guy. I can't discuss the in's and outs of engine details. Not my bag. I was never relaly interested in it. I can, however, speak from experience and based upon the advice my grandfather (a superb mechanic) gave me: ALWAYS buy a GM product because they are more reliable. He was right.
I've driven Fords, Nissans and other vehicles from time to time, but except for the wife's '03 Altima (which even though it's a good car, feels tinny to me), I can't find anything that feels and runs like a GM products, especially a Chevy.
Then again, the use to which the vehicle is put has a lot to do with it to. The Chevette was a great car for what it was: basic transportation. Sure, it did 0-60 in 48 hours (even going downhill, slightly longer with a headwind), but it would get you from A to B with a minimum of fuss, economically and reliably. Heck, I MOVED twice in my Chevette. It never got stuck in snow because it was so light (2440 pounds soaking wet) that even with that little engine power, you could still drive through a good 6-8" of snow. I never got stuck in that vehicle, no matter what the conditions were.
People laugh, but I still recall my Chevette with fondness. It was a really good little car, provided you didn't try to treat it like a street rod (which it never could be).
I'd still put any GM product head to head with it's competitor's equivalent and come out on top, I think.
"That doesn't even count the Ford products rigged to explode by Dateline NBC or 60 Minutes, either."
Those were GM pickups, not Fords. Their "defect" was just as overblown as the Crown Victoria that you're talking about. Crown Vics are "exploding" at a rate no higher than the Impala. Is there any vehicle out there that doesn't have a significant risk of fire when parked and rear-ended by a vehicle traveling 100 mph? If they're really that bad, then why are the police departments suing Ford still trying to buy more?
The Crown Vics were exploding without being rear ended, and they were typically in motion. Big difference between a car that explodes on ya while you're driving it and one that explodes as the result of an accident.
>>Defending Ford<<
You are not listening. I am not defending Ford. I agree with all your complaints about this stuff they've put on the market. I am only responding to your praise for GM by saying 1)Ford had some better ENGINES in the '80s (which you haven't disputed) and 2)Some people have as good things to say about Ford ENGINES as they do Chevy, which you also haven't disputed. Don't go off on tangents that aren't relevent while being defensive.
>>Ford products rigged to explode by Dateline NBC<<
First of all, that was a GM truck, not Ford, and second, it would be silly to hold the manufacturer responsible for what NBC intentionally did.
I'm more familiar with the Citation than the Chevette, as my sister had one (company car from Apple Computer) and a company I worked for in the early '90s had one as a location company car (it stayed in Houston for our use there). Both were pieces of crap, in my view, but the '76 Impala I had was a decent car and despite its size, pretty fast.
Do you have a reference to this "problem"? Or are you making accusations with no evidence whatsoever?
The ONLY cases of Crown Vics "exploding" that I can find are rear-end collisions at VERY high speed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.