US Regulations makes the rear bigger?

[TampaBear67]

Again I Have to Post a reply to this Idiotic Way of Thinking, WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER BE HIT WITH, AN ALLUMINUM BASEBALL BAT OR A PLASTIC COVERED FOAM BAT? Chrome Bumpers are HARD OBJECTS! Thus the reason they were done away with! As I said in my previous post these laws were put into effect for multiple reasons. You see these LAWS not only protect the occupants of the vehicle but also any Pedestrian that said vehicle might strike accidentaly. Yes there are Metal Bumpers Behind These Elements in the event that the Crash does have enough force to injure the occupants of the vehicle, but the foam or rubber also absorb alot of energy from the crash as well as lessening the amount of injury to a pedestrian. They are also Deformable as compared to Solid Metal (Chrome) Bumpers which is why Our Government set these Standards.

There is no reason they could not put some of that cheesy Fake Chrome on the bumpers, but that Garbage ends up looking like exactly that, garbage. Also there is not such a market for chrome today as there used to be (Bling Bling excepted). I do not like all this Added on chrome either, but It's kinda funny, I was actually thinking about some Stainless Steel Bumper inserts to cap the tops of the bumpers myself this morning, just for that "Retro Look", and being an aftermarket modification would not be governed by these laws. I However do not like chrome for other reasons, Living in Florida as I do the Glare off of a Chrome Bumper is Blinding. Yes Chrome is Pretty on Older Cars, but thats where it belongs, on Old Cars!

 

[DanM]

I did some research back in the late 90's and I found out that auto manufacturers make BIG profits on trucks. For example, a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee only costs Chrysler $15,000 to $17,000 to build. They then turn around and sell it for $32,000 to the dealer and the dealer turns around and sells it for $35,000 to $38,000 to the consumer. That's too much of a markup that the auto manufacturers have for an SUV like that. That's why all cars are expensive. Auto manufacturers are selling them for too much to the dealer and the dealer is selling them too much to the stupid consumer. A decent car should not cost anymore than $14,000. But noooooo. The manufacturers have to gouge the dealer and the dealer in return has to gouge the consumer. That's not fair. That's nothing more than just plain robbery.

You're forgetting the fixed cost. I know for a fact that the cost of materials (sheet metal, paint, parts, interiors, everything) for GM to build a 1/2ton Silverado pickup is about 15-20,000 dollars, as you said. But that's just the variable cost.

The problem with the auto industry is it's a high fixed cost AND high variable cost industry. Do you have ANY idea how much it costs to design a vehicle? Millions. A new vehicle program can cost GM in excess of 500 million dollars. So yeah, every car only costs 17,000 to make, but the first one cost 500 million!!!!

Spread that 500 million out over however many of that particular model is sold, and all of a sudden your profit goes straight down the ****ter, ESPECIALLY on low-volume cars.

For example, I highly suspect that Ford loses money on the Mustang program. Let's look at some #s. Consider the new 05 - it was a complete redesign, so let's say it cost Ford 300 million to design from the ground up. Now let's say the average cost of a new Mustang to a dealer is $20,000, and assume Ford makes them for $17,000 each (variable cost). That means Ford has to sell 300,000,000/3,000 = 100,000. That means Ford has to sell 100,000 cars before they even BREAK EVEN. Now that doesn't include any kind of costs associated with preparing service and repair, upgrading machinery at plants, PAYING the plant workers (that's the big one), and so on. In actual fact, Ford will probably have to sell well in excess of at LEAST 500,000, probably more like 1,000,000 05+ Mustangs over the lifetime of the design simply to break even.

Of course, you're right. Ford makes more profit on trucks because they sell for more. (that's why, financially, the Mustang is nothing more than a pimple on the ass of Ford's truck program) I would wager they may even take losses on small cars because they sell for less. Overall, it's not some huge ripoff like you suggest.

 

[GatorGreg]

Was wandering if there is some regulations in the US about bumpers?
Because the rear bumber kind of sticks out in a weird way, it didn't do that on the concept? I live in Sweden and our Focuses looks different from the ones you have over there, in the states the rearbumper is sticking out...
Is there any connection?

Only someone from a socialist country like Sweden would be the only one to think about these stupid bumper standard laws for the new 2005 Mustang. I only have to say that I'm glad that Sweden is far far away from here. Keep the socialists away from here.

WTF?? Bender's just asking why the freaking bumpers are different from the concept - take a chill pill already.

 

[TampaBear67]

Don't forget Marketing as well.

Dan you also forgot the amount of money spent on marketing, you've got all of the comercials, brochures literature, web site development, magazine advertizements, etc., etc. All of these things have to be accounted for. You Also have to take into account that the dealer also has to pay for newspaper ad's, Television comercials, radio advertizing, and so on, and so on.

Oh and lets not forget the simple cost of the facilitys that these vehicles were manufactured in, and the dealers lots that they are sold on, and all their employees. There are alot of factors that add up to the Final Price of a Vehicle. I used to think like that too when I was a Kid, but an adult mind takes into consideration More than the simple cost of the materials that the car is made of.

I must say one more thing on this subject, and not all dealers are guilty of it but PRICE GOUGING IS WRONG! The Manufactures can do something about this, but as long as there are Idiots Who Have to Have "the First of Something" There will always be someone to Take ADVANTAGE of These SUCKERS! So we Only Have Them to Blame!

 

[jadesville]

On a side note, why arent there headlight height standards? I'm sick of taller vehicles blinding me at night cause their lights are still in the grill even though their a foot taller than my car. Hits me right in the face instead of shinning on the road. There's no reason they couldn't be in their bumpers to lower how high off the ground they are.

Yeah, that's very annoying, but they do aim to the appropriate distance, such as a mustang with stock springs, but still because of that height visually they hit you in the face but you have to realize, because the size of their vehicle, to visually see everything on the road, they need to have a larger visable area, which means increasing the area which the light shines

Now, what makes me really angry is when they drive cluelessly with highbeams

 

[DanM]

Dan you also forgot the amount of money spent on marketing, you've got all of the comercials, brochures literature, web site development, magazine advertizements, etc., etc. All of these things have to be accounted for. You Also have to take into account that the dealer also has to pay for newspaper ad's, Television comercials, radio advertizing, and so on, and so on.

Oh and lets not forget the simple cost of the facilitys that these vehicles were manufactured in, and the dealers lots that they are sold on, and all their employees. There are alot of factors that add up to the Final Price of a Vehicle. I used to think like that too when I was a Kid, but an adult mind takes into consideration More than the simple cost of the materials that the car is made of.

I must say one more thing on this subject, and not all dealers are guilty of it but PRICE GOUGING IS WRONG! The Manufactures can do something about this, but as long as there are Idiots Who Have to Have "the First of Something" There will always be someone to Take ADVANTAGE of These SUCKERS! So we Only Have Them to Blame!

Very true. Marketing, facilities, everything adds up. That was my point - I'd bet Ford has to sell 1 million + vehicles of a specific model before they even see a dollar worth of profit. After that, it's gravy, but you don't sell 1-2 million vehicles easily or quickly.

If they did, Chrysler wouldn't be on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

[SVTdriver]

Wow did Rontake that off topic or what. Did it ever return to the original topic. Not that anybody wants to discuss, Why the concept is not the production. It's been hashed over enough.

 

[angliam]

*shakes head*
the laws pertain to the bumpers themselves, not the plastic facsia surrounding it. that's why they're called front and rear facsias (or bumper covers) and not just front and rear bumpers.

 

[Bender54]

Well, thanks for the many answers!

For engineer people, have you heard about vovlos new "airbag hood"?

If I understod correctly there is a small charge that goes off if a pedestrian is hit and the hood goes up and "catches" the pedestrian!?! Common problem is head injuries because the head hits the hood to hard but now it goes a inch or two and works as a "coussin", have no clue how to spell that word!

And Ron, before you go bad mouthing people get your facts right! I'm currently enrolled in a American university and when my education is done it will have cost me more than 70000$. If I where to be a socialist comunist, why would i pay for my education when I can get it for free? Also thinck you need to learn the difference between Commis and Socialists....big diffrence, dum fan (yes, its swedish and since you are so smart Ron, figure it out!)

So thanks again for the answers everybody and now maybe they can lock this thread before Ron acusses me of hidding Bin Ladin!

 

[SVTdriver]

An airbag hood? That sounds odd. Maybe you described it oddly. It sounds like something to punt the pedestrian off the car. :

 

[Bender54]

Well, sorry, my english has been better. The hood goes up, at the front windshield, so when the pedestrian hits it its not fixed, but it helps dampend the impact on the ped.

Would be a great option with the version you misenterpritated it,
"Pedestrian Catapult, 500$, Now also in chrome!!"

And SVT, I understand that the concept car never will be the final product. Was just wundering about the strange looking bumpers.

 

[SVTdriver]

I'd love to have something that catapulted things off my hood(darn cats anyways). I understand that the bumpers changed some. But if you look at the concept and the production you can see they are close.

 

[yellow5.0cobra]

So... I dont understand how a MAZDA Miata or a BMW Z3/Z4 is produced.

They are barely off the ground and are the size of a go-cart.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

What does a Volvo have to do with the Mustang bumper standard laws? I could care less about the Volvo. We are talking about the Mustang here. You cannot compare a Mustang with a Volvo. The Mustang is a very pretty car that is a Muscle car. The Volvo on the other hand is very ugly and a very slow car. Let the Volve stay where it belongs in Sweden.

 

[63_Fairlane]

As for the bumpers, Europe has different standards than the US, which is good because engineers all over the world are working on different answers to making cars safe, reliable and fun.

One other note about profits... The big three have been making good profits in the medium duty truck market(F150,Chevy/GMC 1500, Dodge Ram) for a long time because the basic designs changed slowly and reused many components from year to year. This is going to change with Toyota, Nissan, and possibly Honda getting into the mix, the time between redesigns and improvements will drop drastically. This is the end of profitability of the light truck market in the US.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Hopefully, it will also be the end for Toyota, Honda and Nissan. They all build horrible cars.

 

[DanM]

Hopefully, it will also be the end for Toyota, Honda and Nissan. They all build horrible cars.

The Big Three don't agree. GM and Ford are absolutely terrified of Toyota especially, as well as Nissan and Honda getting into the truck market. Toyota and Honda basically destroyed the car market for the Big Three, to the point that they continue to lose market share and are only now catching on (may be too little, too late).

Don't get me wrong, I love my Mustang. But if Toyota walks in and builds a better truck than GM (like they did in the car market) ... watch out.

 

[RICKS]

Ron, you truly live in a bubble my man. Are you ever underneath a new car, any new car, long enough to notice all of the engineering and shock absorbtion and flat out SUBSTANCE in the modern car bumper system?? Makes my '69 Mustang bumper look like a tinker toy. And what happens when Polly-soccer-mom backs into your 60's Mustang bumper in a parking lot? It's rigid steel, it doesn't have any give or flex, so it buckles from the little 2mph nudge from Polly's SUV, and you've got to buy an entire new bumper. What happens if Polly backs into a modern car? It absorbs the tap, and pops right back to shape. No problem, maybe a little scuff in the paint needing some compound and polish.

Newsflash: Ford owns Volvo.

Newsflash # 2: The Japanese automakers trample the U.S. in reliability and durability, and consistently out-engineer U.S. in engine and drivetrain development (ability to obtain more power from less displacement).

You can live in denial all you want. That's what the U.S. automakers did in the 70's and early 80's when the Japanese came in and wound up so ridiculously far ahead, that it's taken 20 years for the U.S. to re-invent the way they approach engineering and build-quality, and play catch-up. You may not like foreigners. But the more you sit up their in your compound in Montana and completely discard, deny and dismiss their abilities and their progress, like a kid with his fingers in his ears screaming "I don't hear you, LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA....", the faster you'll ensure that your grandkids will be speaking Cantonese and using chopsticks and praying to the emperor as normal everyday routine....(no disrespect to anybody of Oriental descent intended). To fight your "enemy" you must know your enemy. I don't think you know much of anything past the tip of your nose, judging from your nuggets of lack-of-car-or-engineering-kindergarten-basics laid out in these posts.

 

[Blip]

Here's a little bit of info on what Volvo means to North American Ford products:

(11:30:27 Jan. 23, 2004)
2004 Detroit: Three new Fords have touches of Volvo
Influence shows in platform, safety


By RICHARD TRUETT | Automotive News

DETROIT - Three new vehicles from Ford Motor Co. have been Volvo-ized.

This fall, Ford will launch the Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego sedans and the Ford Freestyle crossover vehicle.

Volvo engineers helped design the platform for these vehicles and helped Ford adapt several Volvo safety technologies for them, including the collapsible steering column, all-wheel drive and roof-mounted airbags.

Ford held a technical preview of the vehicles for auto writers in early December, and the Five Hundred and Freestyle were unveiled at the Detroit auto show on Sunday, Jan. 4.

The cars are unlike any non-European Fords ever built or offered in North America, and traditional Ford customers may be in for a shock.

.

 

[QCStang]

I did some research back in the late 90's and I found out that auto manufacturers make BIG profits on trucks. For example, a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee only costs Chrysler $15,000 to $17,000 to build. They then turn around and sell it for $32,000 to the dealer and the dealer turns around and sells it for $35,000 to $38,000 to the consumer. That's too much of a markup that the auto manufacturers have for an SUV like that. That's why all cars are expensive. Auto manufacturers are selling them for too much to the dealer and the dealer is selling them too much to the stupid consumer. A decent car should not cost anymore than $14,000. But noooooo. The manufacturers have to gouge the dealer and the dealer in return has to gouge the consumer. That's not fair. That's nothing more than just plain robbery.

That's called capitalism. What are ya, some kind of commie pinko?