Are we just too demanding?

[shogun32]

... Then... Why do you own such a pos car?

because in the aggregate the 15+ mustangs are finally a car worth owning. The '18+ mustangs can be had for a cheap'ish price and their (sometimes egregious, unconscionable) engineering deficiencies thankfully can be solved for minor money and time. I grew up overseas (Japan) and the modern Mustang is finally a "muscle" car that actually handles, that is also worthy of my money.

Sponsored

 

[3star2nr]

because in the aggregate the 15+ mustangs are finally a car worth owning. The '18+ mustangs can be had for a cheap'ish price and their (sometimes egregious, unconscionable) engineering deficiencies thankfully can be solved for minor money and time. I grew up overseas (Japan) and the modern Mustang is finally a "muscle" car that actually handles, that is also worthy of my money.

Youve never driven an s197... Thats a wonderful,car and handles really well too if u know how to drive...

 

[shogun32]

Youve never driven an s197.

I have actually. Several. Came very close to buying a '14 V6. I looked at the '19 series and it was simply no contest.

 

[Hack]

Youve never driven an s197... Thats a wonderful,car and handles really well too if u know how to drive...

IMO the S197 Mustangs are really good on a smooth road, but the ones I owned and drove either had much more body motion than the 2015+ or had excessively stiff suspension that skipped around over bumps. I think the 2015+ was a huge step forward in suspension design and handling capability for the Mustang.

 

[Norm Peterson]

He went into a review on the s550s in general and to be honest it got me questioning if we as owners and car buyers are just too demanding?

I think as a reviewer he's really not a whole lot different from the rest, from other YT'ers to monthly-magazine road test editors.

What I'm getting at is that none of them want to be seen as a shill for Ford (or whoever else), so they go looking for what they view as flaws. By mere mention, the significance of many of these shortcomings gets blown out of proportion, like they're as bad as the performance specs are good.

He's also looking at the specific car being reviewed as if it was in its fully developed state for everybody. I think most of us here understand that that's unlikely to be the case, and are more than willing to tweak things that may not be up to what each of us as an individual might want to have seen done differently.


Norm

 

[3star2nr]

IMO the S197 Mustangs are really good on a smooth road, but the ones I owned and drove either had much more body motion than the 2015+ or had excessively stiff suspension that skipped around over bumps. I think the 2015+ was a huge step forward in suspension design and handling capability for the Mustang.

No question, the s550 is a better handling car. But shogun was making it out like ford has been, making shit for 50 years then just woke up one morning and produced the s550.

In reality the line has been evolving into what it is over the decades. They had some missteps here and there but respect where its due the s197 is still a very very capable platform and a great all around car.

I think the only real disaster for ford was the 3 valve motors...

You can still find a s197 8 years later with near perfect interiors, the coyote engine has more than proven itself reliability wise so that says a lot about Ford's engineering.

Also we do not want these cars getting "too refined" unfortunately manufacturers and reviewers see more refined or better engineering as more like BMW and Audi and those cars in reality are horrible to own... Aluminium suspension does lower unsprung weight but they also bend easily on real world roadways and need to be replaced. Plastic waterpumps and mounting the engine behind the shock towers does net a more balanced chassis, but now you have to pull the motor to replace a head gasket.

Timing belts are lighter than chains, but now u have to replace them every 60k...

No one wants to spend 1000.00 just to replace a battery... You get my point... There is a reason why used car lots are littered with BMWs while many owners are still, driving 8 year old Mustangs...

 

[Qcman17]

Certainly I've noticed some poor panel fitment on mine. My rear bumper is loose a bit (sticks out) on the passenger side. When my car goes in for its first service I'm going to see if its easy to fix it. But its not a big deal either. I love the car so far despite its few flaws here and there & maybe they even give it some character too.

 

[shogun32]

Also we do not want these cars getting "too refined"

Getting panel gap right is not about over-engineering, it's about giving a damn, and holding tolerances. Quality is something to aspire to. Other civilizations have it embedded into their culture. Detroit by in large hasn't one of them and has to be forced thru economic pain to bring itself up to the level of the competition. Where there is a will, a way will be found. Detroit in general terms has no will.

Aluminium suspension does lower unsprung weight but they also bend easily on real world roadways and need to be replaced. Plastic waterpumps and mounting the engine behind the shock towers does net a more balanced chassis, but now you have to pull the motor to replace a head gasket.

I'm not saying BMW et. al. haven't gone off the deep end of engineering for their own convenience and abandoning any pretext at reasonably-priced maintenance. This mal-engineering is becoming ever more common because the engineers aren't. They are mere CAD monkeys being driven by the ignoramuses in accounting looking to save a penny. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised fully half of the engineering department has never worked on their creations and thru literal personal pain learned that what they are doing is wrong.

 

[Hack]

No question, the s550 is a better handling car. But shogun was making it out like ford has been, making shit for 50 years then just woke up one morning and produced the s550.

In reality the line has been evolving into what it is over the decades. They had some missteps here and there but respect where its due the s197 is still a very very capable platform and a great all around car.

I think the only real disaster for ford was the 3 valve motors...

You can still find a s197 8 years later with near perfect interiors, the coyote engine has more than proven itself reliability wise so that says a lot about Ford's engineering.

Also we do not want these cars getting "too refined" unfortunately manufacturers and reviewers see more refined or better engineering as more like BMW and Audi and those cars in reality are horrible to own... Aluminium suspension does lower unsprung weight but they also bend easily on real world roadways and need to be replaced. Plastic waterpumps and mounting the engine behind the shock towers does net a more balanced chassis, but now you have to pull the motor to replace a head gasket.

Timing belts are lighter than chains, but now u have to replace them every 60k...

No one wants to spend 1000.00 just to replace a battery... You get my point... There is a reason why used car lots are littered with BMWs while many owners are still, driving 8 year old Mustangs...

I don't know anything about 3 valve motors, but I think the 4.6 engine was poorly done in general. Ford could have put heads on it that flowed really well and the 4.6 could have made good power, but instead the 4.6 was mostly a step back from the pushrod 302.

Getting panel gap right is not about over-engineering, it's about giving a damn, and holding tolerances. Quality is something to aspire to. Other civilizations have it embedded into their culture. Detroit by in large hasn't one of them and has to be forced thru economic pain to bring itself up to the level of the competition. Where there is a will, a way will be found. Detroit in general terms has no will.


I'm not saying BMW et. al. haven't gone off the deep end of engineering for their own convenience and abandoning any pretext at reasonably-priced maintenance. This mal-engineering is becoming ever more common because the engineers aren't. They are mere CAD monkeys being driven by the ignoramuses in accounting looking to save a penny. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised fully half of the engineering department has never worked on their creations and thru literal personal pain learned that what they are doing is wrong.

Tightening tolerances costs money. It's not about attitude. The manufacturing process has to actually change in order to hold tighter tolerances. You typically don't get something for nothing.

 

[Dfeeds]

Tightening tolerances costs money. It's not about attitude. The manufacturing process has to actually change in order to hold tighter tolerances. You typically don't get something for nothing.

It's definitely a bit of both. Poor leadership, no matter how tight a process is, can ruin a great deal. I can realistically see a scenario playing out where a standard optioned GT has to be converted to a premium for a rush order. Mid way through, the worker assigned to said vehicle is forced to give up a faux leather panel to another vehicle that's further along. Then the worker is told to leave the standard panel, due to time, and that it will be fixed at the consumer level. Then if things come full circle, the worker is held liable.

That reminds me of when I used to work in a warehouse. Our appliance DC would often pack the truck in a way that made sure several appliances were coming off dented and damaged. The GM would refused to listen, even with photographic evidence, and often called the unload team "lazy and irresponsible." He then kept implementing "safety measures" to prevent damage, which got up to doubling the amount of time it took to unload a trailer. Yet appliances were still damaged and the GM continued his warpath. Everyone fell way behind on everything and now other product was getting damaged due to not being put away. The GM kept believing it was due to laziness, and kept implementing even more ridiculous procedures that consistently made things worse. It was a sinking ship that gave me grey hair; which fortunately reversed years later.

That went on a bit longer than I planned and brought back some stressful memories lol. Oh well, it's obviously not an assembly line for 40k+ vehicle but hopefully the point makes sense.

 

[Hack]

That's a good example and sure it's possible people aren't following the assembly process. That wouldn't be my first guess, however. And it's possible the process was written poorly. I would actually be surprised if that were the case as well. With so many thousands of vehicles being made my assumption is those repetitive details are pretty nailed down. It's a little different compared to loading a truck with a variety of different appliances with the mix changing every time in a small business.

We are all just speculating, though.

 

[BmacIL]

I can realistically see a scenario playing out where a standard optioned GT has to be converted to a premium for a rush order. Mid way through, the worker assigned to said vehicle is forced to give up a faux leather panel to another vehicle that's further along. Then the worker is told to leave the standard panel, due to time, and that it will be fixed at the consumer level. Then if things come full circle, the worker is held liable

This kind of thing does not happen outside of boutique car makers. The car gets built as ordered, as the material flow is too controlled to make a change like this once the vehicle is scheduled/slotted.

 

[Norm Peterson]

No question, the s550 is a better handling car. But shogun was making it out like ford has been, making shit for 50 years then just woke up one morning and produced the s550.

In reality the line has been evolving into what it is over the decades. They had some missteps here and there but respect where its due the s197 is still a very very capable platform and a great all around car.

I think the only real disaster for ford was the 3 valve motors...

Spark plug breakage issues in the early 3-valve motors aside (since they fixed that for at least part of the 2008MY run), Ford's "disaster" was designing the whole modular series around such a small bore spacing.

I don't know anything about 3 valve motors, but I think the 4.6 engine was poorly done in general. Ford could have put heads on it that flowed really well and the 4.6 could have made good power, but instead the 4.6 was mostly a step back from the pushrod 302.

"Poorly done" would be the 2-valve 4.6 iron-block engines either in original or PI form. The 3-valve was comparable to the earlier 4-valve 4.6L modular, which like the 3-valve motor also featured an aluminum block. But yes, I agree that the 4.6 could easily have been so much more (380 HP at the crank should have been stupid easy, given that the 5.0's started out at 412).


Norm

 

[Bikeman315]

It's definitely a bit of both. Poor leadership, no matter how tight a process is, can ruin a great deal.

Totally agree. What I do not understand as to why my wife’s Escape had good paint and panel fitment and many Mustang’s do not. Are the Escape’s factory's workers that much better than Flat Rock’s? Are the assembly and paint robots superior to Flat Rock? And why after 5 years of the current body style are we still discussing this?

 

[shogun32]

And why after 5 years of the current body style are we still discussing this?

Because while we taught the Japanese all about Kaizen and they took it to heart, Detroit abandoned the concept because it cost money and required an empowered and intelligent workforce who could overrule myopic and lazy "management" and "accounting" that cared only to produce just good enough to get away with it.

The Escape is engineered in Europe where they have to hit quality standards or they will fail in the marketplace. Domestically it's assembled by non-union workforce. The Mustang is assembled by union labor in an environment of "good enough" is what passes for quality.

Say the European spec for panel gap is 3mm. They design parts, molds, jigs, and so forth to hit that. Then they go to production and no amount of jiggering fasteners yields any better than 5mm. The Detroit solution is to rewrite the spec to 5mm and ignore the problem. The Kaizen method stops production till they find out what the actual problem is. Let's say it's a bracket that isn't bent properly (shows too much spring back). First question is how did the part not fail the mandatory QC before it was put on the line? In Detroit's case there was no QC or it was haphazard, or they relied on the assurance of the vendor without checking on the vendor independently. Or the person doing the QC wasn't using the jig correctly. Or the parts were packed in a manner that spread the bracket.

The answer might be to package the bracket differently for transport. Maybe it's a matter of pressing it deeper by 0.5degrees with a new jig. Maybe it's pressing it for another half second.

The point is troubleshooting the panel gap takes time, effort, and "give a damn" at multiple levels but it starts with management being committed to quality which is not how Detroit run by "professional managers" (MBA) works.

Steve Jobs of Apple was a first-class a-hole about quality. I'm not advocating for a reign of terror, but it had the mostly desired outcome. With the professional MBAs back in charge Apple software especially but their hardware too has taken a big turn for the worse. The in-house software developers and hardware engineers didn't regress to kindergarten overnight, so why is the work product so much worse?

Sponsored