Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen, when it comes to refit I highly doubt we are talking about something that is "impossible". As I said, I sooner think that it was simply a matter of cost and ROI.
TJR
TJR
Toyota in the news
- Thread starter Tom Schindler
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
Does japan still have slave labor going on?
...just curious....:unsure:
...just curious....:unsure:
Have you looked under the chassis of a unibody constructed vehicle?
I would be willing to bet it would be harder that you think it is, but then again, I am no automotive engineer and neither are you.
I do know my way around a vehicle though.
Tom
I would be willing to bet it would be harder that you think it is, but then again, I am no automotive engineer and neither are you.
I do know my way around a vehicle though.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen, I didn't say it would be easy or hard...I just said "not impossible". Anything that can be engineered and built can be re-engineered and rebuilt.
I could turn a common toaster into an alarm clock if I wanted to...but it's not the most cost effective way to make an alarm clock.
I'll ask you this, Caymen:
Are you saying that it might have been impossible for Ford, given any amount of time and money, to replace the 15 gallon tank with an 18 gallon one?
YES or NO?
TJR
I could turn a common toaster into an alarm clock if I wanted to...but it's not the most cost effective way to make an alarm clock.
I'll ask you this, Caymen:
Are you saying that it might have been impossible for Ford, given any amount of time and money, to replace the 15 gallon tank with an 18 gallon one?
YES or NO?
TJR
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
P.S. Caymen,
I think we are quibbling over the definition of "possible" and "impossible". My point is, even if it takes re-engineering a NEW unibody, rebuilding lines, etc, a larger tank on a Taurus would be "possible"...extremely costly, but possible.
Your definition might be that it's impossible if one can't simply slap on the new tank with little or no modifications, or at least without costly changes.
But to clear up the ambiguity and differences between such points of view, I distinctly said in my original post that a possible reason for not going forward might have been: "the profit from anticipated Japanese sales wouldn't cover the re-engineering and refit."
Implied in that was there was likely significant re-engineering and refit COST.
If we are stuck on the definition of impossible then let's move past it, and let's try in the future not to bring our respective "credentials" into the discussion. You do that quite a bit, and it is a little insulting. (ie. I don't need to be an "automotive engineer" to understand engineering and that anything that can be engineered and built can be re-engineered and rebuilt and that's just a matter of money).
TJR
I think we are quibbling over the definition of "possible" and "impossible". My point is, even if it takes re-engineering a NEW unibody, rebuilding lines, etc, a larger tank on a Taurus would be "possible"...extremely costly, but possible.
Your definition might be that it's impossible if one can't simply slap on the new tank with little or no modifications, or at least without costly changes.
But to clear up the ambiguity and differences between such points of view, I distinctly said in my original post that a possible reason for not going forward might have been: "the profit from anticipated Japanese sales wouldn't cover the re-engineering and refit."
Implied in that was there was likely significant re-engineering and refit COST.
If we are stuck on the definition of impossible then let's move past it, and let's try in the future not to bring our respective "credentials" into the discussion. You do that quite a bit, and it is a little insulting. (ie. I don't need to be an "automotive engineer" to understand engineering and that anything that can be engineered and built can be re-engineered and rebuilt and that's just a matter of money).
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Rick Kent
Well-Known Member
Ok here it is.
I blame the unions. Bush too. Hillary for running. Somehow the Taliban must be involved. Big Oil. Greedy executives. Cartoon Violence. Peter Pan Peanut Butter.
Did I miss anything?
I blame the unions. Bush too. Hillary for running. Somehow the Taliban must be involved. Big Oil. Greedy executives. Cartoon Violence. Peter Pan Peanut Butter.
Did I miss anything?
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
They already have. It's called Mazda.
If that happened here, many on this board would simply state that Bush must have ties with the auto industry.
grump
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
BTW, Grumpy,
I work in the digital video on-demand industry, and I can tell you for a fact that the Japanese govt is very, very much involved with defining the standards throughout various industries. Sometimes to the good, sometimes the bad...but at least they get standards defined.
TJR
I work in the digital video on-demand industry, and I can tell you for a fact that the Japanese govt is very, very much involved with defining the standards throughout various industries. Sometimes to the good, sometimes the bad...but at least they get standards defined.
TJR
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
:lol:
Reminds me of a song by Perry Como...
It's impossible . . .
Tell the sun to leave the sky,
It's just impossible . . .
It's impossible . . .
Change a gas tank in a car,
It's just impossible . . .
Can i hold you closer to me.
And not feel you goin' through me,
Split the second,
That i never think of you,
Oh! how impossible . . .
Can the ocean keep from rushin' to the shore?
It's just impossible!
If i had you, could i ever want for more?
It's just impossible!
And tomorrow , should you ask me for the world,
Somehow i'd get it . . .
I would sell my very soul,
And not regret it . . .
For to live without your love,
It's just impossible!
< repeat last two verses >
Impossible! ( hmm )
Impossible!
Reminds me of a song by Perry Como...
It's impossible . . .
Tell the sun to leave the sky,
It's just impossible . . .
It's impossible . . .
Change a gas tank in a car,
It's just impossible . . .
Can i hold you closer to me.
And not feel you goin' through me,
Split the second,
That i never think of you,
Oh! how impossible . . .
Can the ocean keep from rushin' to the shore?
It's just impossible!
If i had you, could i ever want for more?
It's just impossible!
And tomorrow , should you ask me for the world,
Somehow i'd get it . . .
I would sell my very soul,
And not regret it . . .
For to live without your love,
It's just impossible!
< repeat last two verses >
Impossible! ( hmm )
Impossible!
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Nelson...ROTFLMAO
I could shove a Viper Engine in a Sport Trac.
The point is, possibly an 18 gallon tank could fit if the vehicle pan was totally redesigned to make room for a larger fuel tank. With that being said, a new pan is technically designing a new vehicle.
It was impossible for Ford to fit a 4.6L engine in a Sport Trac. In 2007 Ford put a 4.6L engine in the Sport Trac.
What you are saying that it was possible to put a 4.6L engine into a Sport Trac.
Lets totally ignore the fact that a new vehicle from the ground up was designed to make it happen.
Does that mean it was always possible, even without a redesign?
I do not mean to insult you by doing that. If you were to debate laws with someone else and you think you know what you are talking about, wouldn't you think someone standing up and saying you were wrong about your thinking because he knows better because he is a lawyer would be insulting?
How about trying to tell me about industrial radiography? I have been doing it for 12 years now. Would it be an insult to tell you that you were wrong or mistaken because you are not an industrial radiographer or know little to nothing about it?
Would it be insulting to me to have you tell me I was wrong when it comes to something in your career field because I know little about your field and you are in that field.
Just because we think something could be possible doesn't mean it is possible. An automotive engineer would know that. Also someone that has done their share of turning wrenches on vehicles also has a better idea of what can and can't be done. That doesn't mean they are 100% right all the time.
Tom
Jose Santana
Active Member
Are the Japanese people squawking that Toyota is shipping manufacturing jobs to 3rd world companies like the US? 
Joseymack!
Joseymack!
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Thanks for clearing that up...I only ever meant and pretty much said that the most probable reason Ford didn't pursue the sale of a Taurus with an 18 gal tank was because it wasn't cost/ROI feasible.
You said the following:
Then you said:
Thanks for clearing that up.
My point is that when it comes to refit of cars, something as "simple" as increasing gas tank volume is CLEARLY within the realm of that which is possible. I don't have to be an automotive engineer to be able to make that claim. Such an update/refit may not be cost-effective, and it may be cost prohibitive for the reasons you (and I) mentioned, but it is clearly NOT IMPOSSIBLE. I don't need an automative engineer to tell me that, and I really don't need someone to point out that I am NOT an automotive engineer as a reason that I cannot make such a credible claim. That's the insult.
One doesn't have to be an automotive engineer. It's clear, simple, common sense. Read on and I will explain why.
Something is impossible if we just cannot, by any means, do it or even begin to imagine how to do it. It is impossible if it cannot be done at any cost, or because there are fundamental "leaps" in techology or capability that we haven't yet obtained.
For example, things in the automotive industry that are currently impossible are:
- Making a car that gets 1000 miles to a gallon. I am SURE that is currently not possible.
- Making a car that goes faster than 2000 miles per hour...again, I am sure that isn't possible and I am not an automotive engineer.
I can safely say that today, given what we know and can imagine, those things are not yet possible.
Now, let's compare and contrast that to redesigning and refitting a car with a 15 gallon tank to one with an 18 gallon tank...I can pretty much, with real credibility and common sense say that is something that is possible, we know how to do, we can imagine doing it, we have the capabilities to do it, and it can now be done. It may not be cost-effective given cost vs ROI, but that was my point all along.
Knowing whether something is possible often simply requires what in engineering is known as a "thought experiment". In a "thought experiment", one would mentally or on paper define how they would solve a problem. If the steps in solving the problem are each sufficiently straightforward and only rely on knowledge and capabilities that are known to pre-exist, then the thing which you are trying to prove or to acheive can be achieved.
The thought experiment for putting a larger tank into a car is pretty straightfoward. I'm not an automotive engineer, but I have already considered that the tank either will or won't fit, and if it doesn't fit then subsystems of the car that were once designed would have to be redesigned and built and assembled anew. That rebuild and refit is within the current capabilities, thus the goal is achievable.
Or are you going to say that in the vast engineering wisdom of all the engineers in Detroit it is technically impossible to increase fuel tank size of a vehicle by 20%...that there's no way, no how?
If so, then that explains why the Japanese are kicking our arses.
TJR
Thanks for clearing that up...I only ever meant and pretty much said that the most probable reason Ford didn't pursue the sale of a Taurus with an 18 gal tank was because it wasn't cost/ROI feasible.
You said the following:
Then you said:
Thanks for clearing that up.
My point is that when it comes to refit of cars, something as "simple" as increasing gas tank volume is CLEARLY within the realm of that which is possible. I don't have to be an automotive engineer to be able to make that claim. Such an update/refit may not be cost-effective, and it may be cost prohibitive for the reasons you (and I) mentioned, but it is clearly NOT IMPOSSIBLE. I don't need an automative engineer to tell me that, and I really don't need someone to point out that I am NOT an automotive engineer as a reason that I cannot make such a credible claim. That's the insult.
One doesn't have to be an automotive engineer. It's clear, simple, common sense. Read on and I will explain why.
Something is impossible if we just cannot, by any means, do it or even begin to imagine how to do it. It is impossible if it cannot be done at any cost, or because there are fundamental "leaps" in techology or capability that we haven't yet obtained.
For example, things in the automotive industry that are currently impossible are:
- Making a car that gets 1000 miles to a gallon. I am SURE that is currently not possible.
- Making a car that goes faster than 2000 miles per hour...again, I am sure that isn't possible and I am not an automotive engineer.
I can safely say that today, given what we know and can imagine, those things are not yet possible.
Now, let's compare and contrast that to redesigning and refitting a car with a 15 gallon tank to one with an 18 gallon tank...I can pretty much, with real credibility and common sense say that is something that is possible, we know how to do, we can imagine doing it, we have the capabilities to do it, and it can now be done. It may not be cost-effective given cost vs ROI, but that was my point all along.
Knowing whether something is possible often simply requires what in engineering is known as a "thought experiment". In a "thought experiment", one would mentally or on paper define how they would solve a problem. If the steps in solving the problem are each sufficiently straightforward and only rely on knowledge and capabilities that are known to pre-exist, then the thing which you are trying to prove or to acheive can be achieved.
The thought experiment for putting a larger tank into a car is pretty straightfoward. I'm not an automotive engineer, but I have already considered that the tank either will or won't fit, and if it doesn't fit then subsystems of the car that were once designed would have to be redesigned and built and assembled anew. That rebuild and refit is within the current capabilities, thus the goal is achievable.
Or are you going to say that in the vast engineering wisdom of all the engineers in Detroit it is technically impossible to increase fuel tank size of a vehicle by 20%...that there's no way, no how?
If so, then that explains why the Japanese are kicking our arses.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
Yes. You forgot that most of this is caused by Rap and Hip-Hop music...
I you have 3 cubic feet of storage in your trunk, is it possible to fit 20% more in that same space without redesigning the vehicle?
There is only so much room under a vehicle. Many times, automotive manufacturers put a collar in the fuel tank to reduce the volume. They then offer either an extra option for the larger tank (Nothing more than removing that collar) or it can be used as an added feature in earlier models.
My father has a Taurus of that body design. The only way to make a tank that is 20% larger would be to redesign the pan. Redesigning the pan is pretty much the same as a redesign.
Tom
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Great Caymen,
Then you agree with my original point and that it that it is no doubt possible, and straightfoward, but probably very costly to redesign a Taurus to have a 20% larger gas tank.
Thanks!
Tom
Then you agree with my original point and that it that it is no doubt possible, and straightfoward, but probably very costly to redesign a Taurus to have a 20% larger gas tank.
Thanks!
Tom
It was never impossible to put a 4.6L V8 in a Sport Trac. All it took was a full redesign. But it was NEVER impossible...right.
Would not be impossible to tow 24,500 LBS with a Sport Trac? Just rename the F-450 DRW to the Explorer Sport Trac and now there is proof a Sport Trac can tow 24,500 LBS.
Sounds foolish...doesn't it. No different than your reasoning.
Tom
Would not be impossible to tow 24,500 LBS with a Sport Trac? Just rename the F-450 DRW to the Explorer Sport Trac and now there is proof a Sport Trac can tow 24,500 LBS.
Sounds foolish...doesn't it. No different than your reasoning.
Tom
Rick Kent
Well-Known Member
Is it possible to have a disagreement with Cayment and actually have him acknowlege that both sides of the argument may be reasonable and that reasonable people may disagree?
Based on past experience this may require a technological leap forward that currently makes this premise impossible.
I agree that most of the problems in the auto industry are the result of hip hop. If we do not keep American Idol in check it will spell the end of space exploration as well.
Based on past experience this may require a technological leap forward that currently makes this premise impossible.
I agree that most of the problems in the auto industry are the result of hip hop. If we do not keep American Idol in check it will spell the end of space exploration as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
Exactly right. It's not impossible to put a V8 into a 1st gen ST either, for that matter.
Now you are just being absurd. Clearly that wouldn't even be close to the same vehicle.
Oh, wait...sure it would. Ford's very good at taking a totally different model and rebadging it in order to declare some marketing victory...for example, reskin a Ranger and call it an Explorer, even though they are the same in name only. Or bring back the Taurus because the 500 sales suck.
Does the Edge have an 18 gallon tank? If so, maybe it can be branded the '08 Taurus in Japan. See, it is possible.
TJR
Exactly right. It's not impossible to put a V8 into a 1st gen ST either, for that matter.
Now you are just being absurd. Clearly that wouldn't even be close to the same vehicle.
Oh, wait...sure it would. Ford's very good at taking a totally different model and rebadging it in order to declare some marketing victory...for example, reskin a Ranger and call it an Explorer, even though they are the same in name only. Or bring back the Taurus because the 500 sales suck.
Does the Edge have an 18 gallon tank? If so, maybe it can be branded the '08 Taurus in Japan. See, it is possible.
TJR
WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs
Well-Known Member
So...who is winning the pissing contest? You guys mark your territories yet?
