In The News: U.S. Automakers Battle Public Bias

[Jose Santana]

Q- the gas mileage on my ST was a real shocker...... If I had known i would be getting such crappy milage I would have gotten a full size truck like a Chevy Silverado, but I choose the

ST which was listed as 18-21 I think.... i have never done better than 16 or 17 and i travel highway all the time.... Almost 30k for this and I gotta admit i have never been super thrilled with my choice of vehicle but i am trying to cope....



Joseymack

 

[WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs]

If you going to pull a trailer your going to buy a REAL truck not a Sport Trac with it's limited 5K towing specs.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

I don't usually buy a vehicle based on what I need. I base it on what I want. If I drove what I need, I'd still be driving my very first car -- a 1973 Ford maverick. It was dependable and got me from point A to point B.



When I bought my first ST, I bought it because I wanted a pickup to work on weekend projects. I was tired of bumming other's vehicles. I wanted a small pickup that seated four. I bought that truck when the gas prices were around $1.35/gallon.



Later I moved to a new house twice as far away from work as my old apartment. Shortly after buying the house, gasoline prices DOUBLED. My gasoline budget went from $120/month to around $300/month. At that time, I was on my second ST, which was giving me fits with little annoying issues, costing me $500+ in monthly payments, $300 in gas, plus insurance. I loved my truck, but was fed up with the cost and annoyance.



I bought the Mazda 3, because I wanted something trouble-free, cheaper on gas, able to haul things for small projects, and still a little sporty. I now get twice the gas mileage, a lower monthly payment and I have a lot more fun driving. Little did I know that just three days after buying the Mazda I would get orders to Poland. Gasoline prices here approach $5.00/gallon. It would cost me over $100 to fill the ST, and I would burn twice the gas per mile driving it.



I am happy with my choice.

 

[Gavin Allan]

My SportTrac will pull 6000 lbs....

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Q, I think I get it. You say that "If one OWNS something that needs to be towed, obviously one needs a truck."



So if I am a landscaper who RENTS or LEASES the trailer and the equipment that I pull, since I don't OWN that equipment I'm towing, I guess I don't NEED the truck?

.

.

.

.

.

Just messing with you.







Yes, there are certain jobs and tasks that REQUIRE trucks...but its our choices and desires which are rarely ever true NEEDS that have us doing those jobs and tasks.



We've had this discussion before. Ultimately you feel that you NEED a truck because you CHOOSE to own a camper, but Nelson doesn't NEED a truck if he CHOOSES to help a friend pull a trailer of hay.



Can you see how that argument and logic might make you come off as being judgemental when it comes to other peoples choices and rationale for owning a truck.



Nelson owned an ST, used it like a truck, for the needs of a truck, all for reasons that were his at the time. Now, he no longer owns that truck, again, for reasons that are is.



Can't we all just get along?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Q says:

difference being, NOKC did not NEED a truck for his current needs when he purchased it, but others here buy vehicles for practical needs they currently have.

And you are so sure of that are you?



That seems presumptious to me, and even if you could possibly know all the possible uses Nelson ever had for his truck when he purchased it, and dismissed them all (which is what you are saying), then you are left as coming off as judgemental as to his so-called needs.



Bottom-line, you have dismissed Nelson's so-called needs for a vehicle as not true needs while declaring your needs as valid. I'm not sure why you feel the, er, "need", to do that, but you do it...and have done it before when sitting in judgement of people's "need" for an SUV.



Why do you do that, Q? What's the point of the judgement?



Are you saying that Nelson can't be critical of the ST because he never NEEDED it? Or that he can't now be critical of the ST because he no longer owns one? What exactly is your point in dismissing his needs?



Maybe your only point was to try to *** Nelson for mentioning the "poor gas mileage" of the ST, because he should have expected such with a truck, or because he needed a car and care mileage but bought a truck.



I think poor mileage of the ST is still a fair complaint, regardless of the fact that Nelson traded the ST for a Mazda. Very few ST owners that I know get even close to the window sticker reported mileage (highway or city). I'm lucky when I ever get better than 15mpg on my ST, and I baby it pretty much when I drive it. I really would like to average between the 16 to 21 mpg that was on the sticker, and not the 14 to 15 that I actually get.



TJR

 

[WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs]

This thread reminds me of AI...Practice, Practice, Practice 27 times...LOL.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

If you read my post, you'll never see the word, "need". I never said I needed a truck, so why is Q arguing the point? I wanted a truck, and so I bought it. When I no longer wanted it, I bought something else. That is the beauty of a free society. I don't have to request the approval or justify ANY purchase I make. I am not married, and base my decisions on whatever criteria I deem important.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

You are right, Q. Very few people here actually NEED trucks. Most just want them, and many of those that say that they "NEED" them justify that NEED through their choices and actions. YOU included.



It was presumptious. Just because Nelson goes on record as saying that he "Never said he needed a truck", doesn't remove the fact that there were times where he chose to do things with it that required a truck. Just like you choose to own a camper that requires you have a truck. Really no difference...choices related to use.



But you didn't answer the question.



What exactly does Nelson's so-called need, or lackthereof, for a truck (now or in the past), have to do with his ability to be critical of the ST?



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Yes Q, but it sure did come in handy for those "silly" things you said I did with it. I'd say 90% of the folks here do the same "silly" things with theirs too. Also, if I remember correctly, you bought your trailer AFTER your ST. So why did you NEED yours?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Give up, Nelson.



Q's needs are true needs!



Everyone else's needs are just desires and wants.



Yeah, I know, such opinions could be viewed as egocentric and judgemental. But not when you are Q. That's why we love him so much!



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Maybe he really IS Q from Star Trek. He acts the same way...oh heck...He's just popped into my room and turned me into a newt! lol

 

[Gavin Allan]

Mine is longer than yours!

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Good for you...I have cute Polish women. :lol:



'Nite all. It's been fun, but it is after 11 here and time to go to bed.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Right, Q, "over my head"...I'm such a dullard like that.



In another thread, Caymen and I discussed what factors went into the buying decision most go through when buying a new car.



I said in that thread that I thought, that for most people, it's a combination of:



- form (e.g. looks, design, and the like),



- function (which speaks to your draconian definition of "needs"), and



- cost (which includes price, TCO)



What I meant by that was that these three "areas" help people in their decision making process.



I suspect many here bought the ST because:



It visually appealed to them (form), it gave them the versatility and capabilities that they felt they would often use (function), and it fit within their budget (cost).



Ultimately the function that we want from a vehicle we are considering purchasing is a combination of WIBNI-like functions (Wouldn't It Be Nice If, or when), and MUST HAVE functions.



My only real point is that you seem comfortable to sit in judgement as to which items are WIBNIs and which are MUST HAVEs, not only for yourself, but for other people, and you use esoteric attributes like OWN and PULL to rationalize your judgement.



Also, I didn't see your answer to Nelson's question. Which came first? Your ST or your camper?



If it was your ST, then you didn't need it, by your own earlier definition; and your ST instead enabled you to indulge a want or desire...that's versatility.



Versatility might be a need. Who is to say it isn't?



TJR

 

[Rick Kent]

I know what I want, I mean "need"



I need to keep reading Q's posts because of their entertainment value.



Such a pompous, arrogant, anti-social Q-t pie.



Where else can you get such entertainment?

 

[Josh Langel]

Q, it's called "if I can afford it, I want it."



Meaning, I may not "need" a truck 70% of the time, but I can afford it 100% of the time, so the issue of need doesn't apply most of the time.

That silly bigscreen pic and all that follow did not prove anything, all of that could've been delivered.

WOW, you're so smart... then I guess you wouldn't need a truck either... hell, lets have EVERYTHING delivered!! Yay!!!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Q has spoken:

It's quite simple, again - current needs should be part of your buying decision.

I will agree that current needs often play an important part in one's buying decision. But we shouldn't chastise people that buy when that is not the case. Maybe future needs are more of a consideration for them, or they value the flexibility to do things with their purchase that they don't need today. Maybe they are purchasing freedom and versatility.



****, man, we buy things all the time we don't need, just to put them on a shelf so that we might one day take them down and use them...or not. "Need" has little to do with one's ability to talk critically on a purchase or the item of purchase, yet you brought it up, and STILL won't say WHY! WHY Q, WHY?



I am glad you are having fun sitting in judgement of other people's actions and labeling them as "foolishnesses." Continue to have fun Q.



Whatever gets your nut off, I guess.



Later,

TJR

 

[user 62394]

Holy Hijacked Thread, Batman!



Rocks

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Okay, thanks Q!



We are now at the meat of your argument.



You are saying that Nelson and those like him that never really "needed" a truck, have no valid basis in criticizing the gas mileage or the ride and handling of the ST on this board.



That is what you are saying.



And, sorry, I have to disagree.



First, let’s discuss the criticism. The 1st gen ST ride and handling is awful to the point of being unsafe for certain road conditions and speeds. The OEM tires are equally terrible and quite possibly the reason for poor wear and excessive road noise. Both of these criticisms are widely held by members here and are arguably things that if Ford were to simply acknowledge and address they would have a better product. The gas mileage of the 1st gen STs is not that good, and rarely in the range of that reported on the sales window sticker. Heck, isn’t there something wrong in the engineering when the new V8's get pretty much the same mileage as the tried and true V6's that have been out for almost a decade, or you have to average greater than 70mph on the highway to even approach the highway MPG rating?



I have said it before, and I will say it again, the best way to NOT improve is to dismiss criticism from critics.



Regardless whether you agree with the criticisms or not isn’t the issue. If you don’t agree, then counter them with valid points. It’s the dismissing of the criticism and your reason for doing so that I take issue with.



You are dismissing what Nelson (and others are saying) because of the absence of some "badge of honor" that you won't instill upon him, that badge being his "need" for a truck, a “need” that you give the definition for.



P.S. I didn't catch where Nelson said he was "needing" car-like fuel economy.



TJR