  Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1637 Registered: 06-2004 |
I heard a customer in a car rental office bragging up the Edge he had driven but that seems like a drop in the bucket in the face of the news of record losses. (Message edited by lilpup on January 25, 2007) | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1313 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yeah, Ford was really pushing the Edge, but they have not really said recently how it was selling. Maybe it has not been out long enough to say yet. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2241 Registered: 10-2004 |
WJR reported that Ford expects to turn a profit for 2009--not until. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 4628 Registered: 10-2003 |
Stock price up $.20/share so far this a.m. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 992 Registered: 09-2004 |
Of that huge loss, a great deal of it (almost 80%) was onetime costs associated with buyouts and other turnaround costs. (Message edited by sharmaal on January 25, 2007) | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1638 Registered: 06-2004 |
Around here we know about the restructuring costs, but nationwide I don't think consumers do. When announcements like this (I know it's required) get trumpeted by the press it further hurts the company in the general public eye. Sometimes I can't believe how hated (and I mean *hated*) the domestics are in some places. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 33 Registered: 12-2006 |
um... only $2.8 billion of the total $12.7 in losses was associated with operational losses not involved in the restructuring. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 111 Registered: 12-2006 |
Ford is a huge, bungling bureaucracy and it has no long-term prospects whatsoever unless someone at the very top has the guts to dismantle the bureaucracy. Ford needs to make the kinds of vehicles people want in 2007, not the kind they wanted in 1965. Toyota is growing market share because they "get it"; Ford, clearly, does not. All the restructuring in the world won't save them from lack of vision. You can't shrink your way to success, or as Churchill put it after Dunkirk, "wars are not won by evacuations". Come on, somebody at Ford, grow some cojones and start working to get that market share back by putting decent products out on the market. Sheesh. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 229 Registered: 11-2005 |
Hmm...well, Henry Ford Village is still pretty neato. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1688 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: People make this argument all the time and it is Bullshit. If they made cars people didn't want no one would drive a Ford, so someone must want them. They along with the rest of the Domestics need to cut the costs of the cars they sell. You may have a better product but not for $3-$10 grand more than the competitor. But to do this they must first cut operating costs and we all know that won't happen. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 706 Registered: 10-2003 |
"People make this argument all the time and it is Bullshit. If they made cars people didn't want no one would drive a Ford, so someone must want them. " If you go outside of Michigan... they don't drive Fords. Take a trip out East sometime and count the number of Fords compared to other cars. Yes they need to trim operating costs. But when they had the edge on the SUV market with the Explorer, a lot of profit overpowered their inefficiencies. Design is the key. | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2006 |
In the past few years, ford has had good designs. The Mustang was a hit. The Fusion is a great looking car. I'm impressed with what I've seen with the Edge. With the exception of the 500 (great car but bland design), Ford's designs have been great. Its the financial structure underneath and overcoming 30 years of mediocre quality that is the major problem at this time. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1690 Registered: 12-2003 |
Someone must be driving those 2.9+ million cars then. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 708 Registered: 10-2003 |
Good qualifier on the 500 jimbo. I really have no idea if the edge is a good design as their ads don't really highlight the car | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2245 Registered: 10-2004 |
Both Ford and GM have positioned themselves for at least a decade as being primarily truck builders--formerly their bread-and-butter until Honda and Toyota started beating them at their own game this decade. And, a general shift occurred among Americans away from trucks and back to sedans. Notice the months of unsold SUV inventories depreciating away. GM, wisely, shifted in time. For Ford, it's probably too late. | ||
Carolcb Member Username: Carolcb Post Number: 24 Registered: 11-2006 |
My best friend just bought one and loves it. She said it was comfortable for her and her husband, and he is 6" 5" or so............ | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 173 Registered: 11-2004 |
What's with all the TV commercials for the dealers advertising the 2006 Toyotas. You'd think they'd be all gone by now, since Toyota is so wonderful. ;) | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 35 Registered: 12-2006 |
Thanks Irish, My parents leased the first 500 sold at Gorno Ford in Riverview. It was a GREAT car for them. Rode like a dream, got decent gas mileage for a car that size and the trunk was so big that they could easily pack what they needed to move down to Florida every winter for "Snowbird Season". It was big but didn't handle like a big car either. My only complaint is that it was boring looking on the outside. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 856 Registered: 04-2006 |
LY, Positioning itself as a truck dealer did such wonderful things for Isuzu | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2247 Registered: 10-2004 |
I sues you--a perfect name for a legal firm... And those misspellers and poor grammarians on DY could live with it and never notice. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 312 Registered: 02-2006 |
We all know why the "Big 3" are dying. They gave too much to the union. The union workforce is wayyyyyy over paid and has been for a long time. Now they are finally waking up and realizing that they gave too much. Too much in hourly pay, too much in pension, too much in healthcare, too much for retiree healthcare, too much for not working, just too much of everything. Unfortunately, when things do turn around again they will start doing it all over. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2248 Registered: 10-2004 |
Having Toyota racing in NASCAR for the first time starting next month is somewhat unnerving for some too. Should be an interesting year in motorsports. | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11171 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: That's just it. The 500 isn't a bad car, it just fits right under the category of your typical rental car though in terms of excitement. The interior/extorior are about as bland as it gets. Of all the new cars coming out of Ford, it is by far the worst, hopefully part of a dying breed. The Fusion, Milan, Edge, Zepher, and Mustang get a big thumbs up when compared to the 500. I found some excitement in Ford's concepts this year, I can only hope that the designs make it to market, instead of being watered down into another bland car like the 500. Their motto is "Bold," so give us bold cars like the Lincoln MKR and Ford Interceptor before the window of opportunity passes. The Interceptor is already playing catch up to the Chrysler 300, but is different enough that there would still be a market for it. The Focus on the other hand...there was a reason that even during my second visit to Cobo this year, during a packed house, that there were few people listening in on what the new Focus was all about. New? That's it? and it's not due out till 2009? I seriously suggest the start over, from scratch. | ||
Queensfinest Member Username: Queensfinest Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2006 |
Ford Motor Co's market share has fallen to 17.5 percent in North America, according to the article in The Times today. In major cities, like here in New York for example, it is far less. In NYC their share is about ten percent. Most of the people still buying these cars are in the Detroit area or in rural areas. The rest of the country realizes that this formerly reputable company and their outdated business model are no longer viable in today's world. Their product is simply sub-standard. Check the statistics on NHTSA's website. The company and their once innovative business model have deteriorated to the point where they are placing the public in danger with their products. This is evident in the unexplained fires that occur in the Focus model, amongst other problems I'm sure you're all aware of. I have yet to see an "Edge" so I have no opinion on these. General Motors on the other hand, seems to be one domestic auto company with at least a future. What they've done for the city during the past several years is invaluable, and their product has been above and beyond what Ford has offered in at least the past fifteen years. Ford Motor company exemplifies the type of outdated attitudes and business practices that have and are obviously still contributing to the embarrassing deterioration of the once prosperous Detroit Metro Area. The only hope for this company and the jobs and tax base that it contributes to the Detroit MA, is a scenario where a foreign company "merges" with them, as was the case with Chrysler. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 116 Registered: 12-2006 |
Well said Queensfinest. And for those of you who think Ford or GM is "too big to die", recall the New York Central Railroad, in 1946 the largest industrial corporation in the world, and in 1970 bankrupted and extinct. | ||
Sticks Member Username: Sticks Post Number: 192 Registered: 08-2005 |
The 500 looks a helluva lot better than most of the Crown Vic designs on the exterior but thats not saying much. quote: To explain the sarcasm: like closing up about 5 dealerships a month across the country and offering only two base models incredibly similar to what GM already makes. What ever happened to the Trooper and the Rodeo? I can't believe they still pump out new cars. quote: What kinda hash are you smoking? I'll have to get my hands on some Polk data to invalidate your statement but the F-Series was the best selling truck line in 2005 (2006 registration data is not out yet) and has been for what, 40 to 50 years? Notice that no Honda or Toyota trucks sold even a quarter what Ford did. (Message edited by Sticks on January 25, 2007) | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2252 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ford is toast. It too will be another K-Mart or NWA, as far as its common shareholders are concerned. They will own worthless "wallpaper." Even the Ford logo is mortgaged, as I hear--as if that has any value anymore. When Ford dies, its assets will eventually be picked up and will probably remain as a builder of the F-Series trucks, one of a few Ford assets of real value. Mazda will be snapped up also, and its European brands could fit in with some car makers. The only hope left would be another DCX-type acquisition whereby Ford is absorbed into another firm such as Toyota or Honda, and then GM will be the only US "car" maker remaining. This would parallel the 1970s whereby Zenith outlasted all the dozens of major US home entertainment manufacturers only to die off (or be absorbed) itself. Then, what will be the next once-major US industry to die? | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 104 Registered: 08-2006 |
Sticks- nsync well over 14 million of one it's albums we all know what a quailty production that was! Just because you can sell a lot of something does not mean it isn't crap! | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 105 Registered: 08-2006 |
ly agreed ford is screwed they might not even exist in 5 yrs. At least g.m has made a serious attempt to adapt. Because of there 18b financing deal it is sink or swim in 2008. Last time I checked 4,300lb "midsize" suvs don't float to well. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2254 Registered: 10-2004 |
If Ford picks its "creditors" well, those creditors could be the new "owners" of various Ford assets--at the expense of its common shareholders. Something to consider... (Message edited by LivernoisYard on January 25, 2007) | ||
Supersport Member Username: Supersport Post Number: 11177 Registered: 10-2003 |
I was saying this two years ago when still working for a supplier for Ford. Though all the headlines called for a doomsday over at GM and struggles at Chrysler, they were praising Ford for their massive cuts. Working with Ford, I saw all the stuff coming down the pipe. I saw how they were letting go people they needed most. While the people on wallstreet may be praising Ford for their cutbacks and early retirement offerings, they will only hurt Ford. You see, those they are offering these buyouts to are long time Ford employees, the types with the most experience. Ford was notorious for not hiring contract employees direct, which is why I jumped ship over 4 years ago. My friends that all stayed got their walking papers about 2 years later. They had stayed because they were holding out, as they figured eventually they would get hired direct. What is left over is a hodge podge of employees, many of the most qualified whom are walking out the door with the first opportunity at another company. Why? Because the competitors are paying more. Top management was leaving for foreign comptition back when I was there, and it's only become more common since then. Seriously, I was there 2 years and worried about getting let go every time cuts came, the first of which was after I had been there just a few months. Would you want to work in this type of environment? There were 3 more layoff periods while I was there for my nearly 2 years. I got out because I got tired of waiting for the axe to fall. My coworker got out weeks before me, he actually was put on meds due to all the stress from not knowing if he would be cut. THAT is what moral at Ford has been like, and it's not something that just came about, it's been that way for the past 7+ years. How do attract new workers to a work environment like that? I knew back then, Ford would be the one in the worst shape over the next few years. Working with GM as well, I knew their future products, Chrysler already had their strong lineup and continues to build upon that. Ford, aside from a few exceptions, has always been last to bat. I mean seriously, somebody mentioned the Crown Vic above, which is a perfect example. That car should have been replaced 10 years ago! I would not be surprised at all if Ford either ceases to exist, or is merged (like Chrysler) with another company, like Toyota or Honda. Yet in all honesty, why would either want Ford other than for their trucks. Henry Ford must be rolling in his grave right now, it's sad that it has come to this. While I've never been a huge Ford fan, I have a real appreciation to the history of the company and what it has meant to the world. I remember reading letters to Henry Ford on display at the museum a few years back. That is when I truly realized the impact he had upon all the world. By far one of the most influential people in regards to the industrial revolution, and now his company's chips are all on the table, and they seem on the brink of folding. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1418 Registered: 12-2005 |
I miss my old Pinto. «sniff» | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2255 Registered: 10-2004 |
Didn't Ford sell off its older skilled employees during the 1990s and trade them in for younger ones simply to cut its health-care expenses? If so, it backfired. In addition, younger employees are harder to entice to accept buyouts because they are way too far away from retirement and they know that with their skill levels, they will never again be so highly over-compensated. So, they stay... and stay... | ||
Ltdave Member Username: Ltdave Post Number: 28 Registered: 09-2006 |
boy i see lots of contradictions in this thread... one of them... ""they gave too much. Too much in hourly pay, too much in pension, too much in healthcare, too much for retiree healthcare, too much for not working..."" and.. "" Why? Because the competitors are paying more..."" and then there is this one ""...the Crown Vic above, which is a perfect example. That car should have been replaced 10 years ago!"" now i know that not any one person made all of these comments but one person KNOWS for a fact Ford pays too much and another person says the best leave Ford because they DONT pay ENOUGH... as far as the Crown Vic needing to be replaced 10 years ago, why? should Toyota have replaced the Camry? the Land Cruiser? what i see as being the problem with buying or not buying ANY domestic (dcx included) is the PERCEPTION that they arent any good. how can the Toyotas and Hondas built in AMERICA be so good when the Fords and Chevys built in AMERICA be so bad? how many silent recalls have there been on Toyota products? probably way more than you know of. and that i see as a problem for the domestics and the socialist backed media. if Ford has an issue, they deny it too long and then the media start TRUMPETING that news in the headlines both print and broadcast. you dont hear that bad news as related to Toyota or Honda... a lot of people here SOUND as if they hope Ford goes under (my PERCEPTION) but i certainly hope they dont. david | ||
Dlb Member Username: Dlb Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2007 |
I have a 2002 Focus and I was looking forward to the next gen Focus. My reaction to the new Focus ,,,a great big yawn. They think that some sort of technology merger with Microsoft is going to get me to want one? NOT!!. I was hoping for something like the european version. The Ranger is also needs a make over. The european version is available with a crew cab. I just dont get it as to why we cant get those designs here. Toyota,Nissan,Dodge and Gm all have crew cabs on their smaller trucks. Heres the web site for Ford UK. http://www.ford.co.uk/ie/all_c ars/-/-/-/-/-/- | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2013 Registered: 07-2004 |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of you love the look of the Fusion. I hate it. That three-bar fake chrome grille looks cheap. If Ford is trying to imitate the look of Cadillac, it is a poor imitatation. Even the back lights of the Fusion look like a poor imitation of those of a more successful car, the Nissan Altima. The silver trim of the back lights looks like a cheap metal like tin, instead of chrome, and then the red part of the lights looks incomplete. With that being said, poor design is one reason why Ford is not competing. I'm not a truck person so I won't comment on Ford's trucks. Their cars, however, look terrible. How many of their cars really excite you? I mean excite you. The Mustang is the best looking car they've got going, period. After that, what else is there? Now, to make matters worse, Ford wants to continue with the three-bar fake chrome grille on the redesigned 500, the 2008 Focus, and the new Edge. Instead of having that look on one car, now I guess they want this to be the Ford look, replacing the Ford oval. In my opinion, bad idea. Where's Ford's equivalent to the Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, the Chevrolet and the soon to be produced Dodge Challenger. Where's the excitement? | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1272 Registered: 11-2003 |
Everyone always has all the answers. The media. This board. There is no one solution. With that said, someone mentioned Henry rolling in his grave. Keep in mind that ol' Henry nearly sank FoMoCo in the late 40's. He refused to adapt to the customer and continued to want to do it his way. He was essentially forced to sign over the reigns of the company to Hank the Deuce. The gov't needed its war materials and the family knew he was about to kill em. Hank saved em and now they're floundering again. Chrysler seems to have a crisis once a decade. Ford about every 50 years. No one solution. People are free to spend their money how they like. But I always encourage people to look at all the different cars from all the automakers out there. Unfortunately Ford often never gets paid a visit. Not so much the customer's fault. If Ford had given them a reason to take a look they would have. Simply being almost as good as everyone else isn't gonna make anyone change when they're happy with their Honda and on their 5th one. Only way they're gonna change is if/when Ford offers something BETTER than their Honda. Who's fault is that? We all want the best value for the money, especially when it is the second largest purchase most people ever make in their lives. You want the best plasma TV for your $. People want the best car for their $. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 106 Registered: 08-2006 |
In a economic sense I don't want them to die. Although at the same time it's what the gm guys have been saying for years. They have a inferior product line with inferior quality. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 118 Registered: 12-2006 |
LY, Good question - after autos, are there any major US industries left? I recommend Tom Friedman's "The World is Flat" as a good read for anyone interested in the future of the Detroit economy. We aren't used to what the buzzword makers call "creative destruction", or something like that. The idea is you lose industries and companies and jobs all the time everywhere; it's no big deal so long as you're also generating new ones all the time. Here in the D we seem to be working only half the equation. That's the big diff between here and elsewhere IMVHO. Beavis, N 'Sync sold a pile of albums but only for a very short time. Crap sells but not for long. FoMoCo only as one chance now, and that's to quickly come up with an exciting product line that'll turn heads (and on the coasts, not just here). Then they have to repeat that, over and over. With the slog-through-the-mud bureaucracy they've so laboriously built over the decades, good luck. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 107 Registered: 08-2006 |
See thats exactly it! How has crap sold for so long? In the 80's GM was pioneering such things as- active fuel management AKA cadillac 8-6-4, Grand National Turbo, dual climate control, Quad 4s, aluminum heads, turbo trucks and the EV1 was early 90sford was getting by on 5.0 mustangs, Trucks, and the taurus who-hoo I know I want a reliable family car that blows its head gasket whenever it feels like. Or maybe a "pony car" that has just enough power to turn over the tires. By the time any 5.0 I have ever seen has clocked 120,000 miles they puking so much burnt oil That I can't see! now trucks I can't really say much about. The 4.9l/300ci straight six is possibly the best "truck" motor ever! You can't kill these things! (this is why they use them in those duralube commercials) | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 120 Registered: 12-2006 |
Brother Beavis, My '99 Contour, which every Ford engineer I know tells me is a piece of crap, has about a quarter million miles on it and runs like a top. Still gets over 30 MPG, and in all those years I've had maybe two really major type repairs. I'm giving it to my oldest daughter when she turns 16 (after she learns to drive it; it has a manual transmission) and she'll probably put another 75K or so on it before we finally have to bring it to the elephants' graveyard. I don't think the problem is Ford makes crap; in my opinion they don't. Ford has not figured out what type of cars people want to buy, and they try to solve the problem by shrinking. Problem is, you get good at shrinking, you shrink all the way. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 108 Registered: 08-2006 |
Actually ford contours were a odd little success. The SVT versions have a cult following like the 94-96 impalas. In svt trim the were nimble and relativily quick. Now crap is a subjective word. Ford has been about value since the days of the model T. The problem is when "value" is your only selling point the sale goes to the cheapest bidder. BTW how was the electrical after 60,000? how was that annoying buzzy exhaust after 75,000? how about premature front end wear 60-80,000? Anyways penny pinching is definetly the problem. One of the more interesting recalls lately was 2001-200? f-150 with cruise control servos that shorted and burnt the truck to the ground. How a part with 12v and less than a amp running through it starts fire and burns the truck to the ground is beyond me. Or ask anyone that owns a 96 and up rear drive vehicle with SOHC how their truck/car is running. For some reason a cam sensor blows (cost 300 dollars) and causes the car to not run on all cylinders. I have personally witnessed this on a 6 cyl explorer and 2 4.6l f-150s | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 122 Registered: 12-2006 |
Believe it or not, I never had problems with the electrical or the exhaust. My front end went out about 160K miles which is not bad. You're right in general though, my car was an exception, the legendary Ford cheap-out-ness is what Ford owners are used to and what most consumers want no part of. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 231 Registered: 11-2005 |
If Ford goes under, the city of Dearborn goes with it. Detroit Redux. This is the same fear I had before GM sorta kinda rebounded: What happens to the RenCen and Detroit if GM were to fold? | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 109 Registered: 08-2006 |
I'm surprised! every 4-cyl contour Ive driven or rode in has a very annoying exhaust. As for electrical I guess you got one of the good ones or it just hasn't seen many dirt roads. I guess same with suspension. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 940 Registered: 12-2005 |
Mulally is going to have to "Billy Jack" the whole corporate culture in Deer-bern, of all the big three Ford has a county club atmosphere in its upper and middle ranks. They have been on autopilot as long as the SUV "personal tank" trend continued. For the last 14 years or so their only meaningful profits have come from the sale of those gas hogs. Profitable to the point that they didn't have to roll their sleeves and be intelligent in car design, engineering, costing and marketing. Just floating on autopilot. Along comes $3/gallon gas and the SUV roundup is over. I hope you enjoyed the party! As for quality, Ford was unique amongst the domestics in the company-wide adoption of Statistical Process Control in the mid 1980's. This is the quality assurance method promoted by Dr. Edward Deming (largely for Western Electric and AT&T) and wholly accepted and used in Japan. You can't say that the average Ford product of the 1990's was anywhere as bad as the total shit they made in the 60's, 70's and early 80's. All three domestics suffer from the same basic cheapness--they shave fractions of pennies from parts to insure there's lots of cash left over for incomprehensible executive pay and bonuses, but then something goes Ka-Blooey on a model/line and they pour dump trucks full of money on the problem fixing it, loosing face all the while. I have a theory, it's probably flawed (most of mine are): take the difference in executive pay between the (Japanese) companies kicking the domestics ass, knock down the E-pay to that level (I know the old saw: "we want to keep those good people"--why? aren't they the decision makers who got you in this fix in the first place? why is that only your top floor people are worth anything and everyone else in the company, regardless of their individual competence and dedication is interchangeable/replaceable?) Take the difference in E-pay and apply it to the vehicles. Try it once. I have a friend who is an engineer at GM. They (and the whole industry) trade cars with each other for cross-evaluation. Two of each model. One is dissected and analyzed, the other driven and tested. The major components of each car are splayed out on boards with labels identifying the parts, their materials and processes. Uniformly, when looking over the parts of a Lexus the Gm boys (execs) say "that's crazy, that's way too expensive, they’ll go broke!" They are not going broke, they are eating more and more of your lunch every year making cars and trucks and SUV's that people don't have to bribed to buy, and according to the water cooler talk across the nation, don't $600/repair you to death after the warranty is up. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 495 Registered: 12-2005 |
56packman, let me take your theory and flesh it out into a somewhat realistic example. I know this thread is about FoMoCo, but I am more familiar with the numbers at GM and the results should be applicable for both. I don't have ready access to a trusted source that would tell me exactly how much the average greedy US exec is overpaid as compared to their humble and self-sacrificing Japanese counterpart. So instead, how about if GM's Board of Directors just told all of the approximately 4,000 unclassified executives at GM that they are going to divert the first $200K of their annual salary and put it into product piece cost in an effort to improve the approximately 9 million vehicles they build each year. This would generate a pot of about $800M and if spread equally across each vehicle line, it would contribute $89 per vehicle towards "product improvement". On a $25,000 MSRP vehicle, that represents a 0.6% increase in the typical piece cost budget that engineers are given to work with. It would also mean that GM's executive ranks would be thinned by at least 60% since nobody wants to work for free, or worse yet, have to pay their employer to work for free. GM and Ford's major problem is that their structural costs in NA are way too high for the number of vehicles they are currently producing. Their structural costs are still stuck at the levels from when they had 8% more market share than they do now. Compounding their problems is the fact that the "jobs bank" provisions in their labor contracts have turned their production labor cost from a variable into a fixed (structural) cost. GM and Ford are the "high-cost" producers in NA while Toyota and Nissan are the "low-cost" NA producers. Other factors being equal, the low-cost producers will always prevail in the marketplace over the long term. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2260 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ford was fortunate until the 2000s because until recently they only had some 70 of their employees in the jobs bank instead of thousands. | ||
Queensfinest Member Username: Queensfinest Post Number: 6 Registered: 08-2006 |
Good point about the railroads, Professorscott. This all just goes to show that anyone, whether corporation or municipality, who are involved with transportation systems, policy, or whatever, must continuously be able to evolve and come up with innovative ideas for the future. Look around the world and you'll see that the so-called "winning cities" are for the most part at the forefront as far as transportation technology and efficiency. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2262 Registered: 10-2004 |
An expensive transit "option" such as rapid transit for Detroit won't be an engine for driving commerce but in assisting it if ever a demand might exist in the very distant future. Otherwise, it's a white elephant when it fails and would be a boondoggle only benefiting again various construction lobbies at the detriment of local taxpayers who must foot 40% of the capital costs ($x billions) and ALL of the operating costs. The state is way too strapped itself with its own bloated bureaucracy to assist Detroit in much of anything anymore. If rapid transit were to be funded mostly by Detroit taxpayers, there would be such an exodus from the city that in no way would be matched in numbers by any newcomers. Then the rapid transit lines could be used for conducting tours of a ghost city, such as in an amusement park. | ||
Hochi Member Username: Hochi Post Number: 79 Registered: 10-2003 |
It kind of disgusts me to see the local populace turn on Ford like many of you here seem to have done. Now is not the time to pipe up with long choked down I-told-you-so's. Whether you know it or not, you job and or job quality probably depends on the health and survival of Ford Motor Company. If Ford goes down any further we're all going down. They certainly realize this; poking at the open wound with an ice pick isn't making the beast heal any faster. | ||
Sticks Member Username: Sticks Post Number: 194 Registered: 08-2005 |
Royce, I totally agree about the Fusion. At first, I kind of liked it. Then I took a look at the other Ford models and realized it was more of the same bland styling. Fusion: fake chrome grille and fake Altezza/Euro tails. Edge: fake chrome grille and fake Altezza/Euro tails. New 2008 Focus: fake chrome grille and wanna-be Altezza/Euro tails (and the two door reminds me of the ugly-ass Escort ZX2). Expedition: fake chrome grille and thankfully no Euros. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 534 Registered: 08-2006 |
I agree with those that have posted their whole problem is an uninspired product line. It all started with that Ford Fairmont. I can't recall any car made since 1978 by Ford that was really sexy except for the last few gens of the 'stang. Prior to that you had those nice LTDs Torino Elites and T-Birds, all had exemplary styling, no the quality may not have been that great, but you still wanted one more than a Corolla, simply because it was a nicer looking car. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1691 Registered: 12-2003 |
Whether or not they saving pennies for execs bonuses which is debatable. Americans like CHEAP products, they are buying foreign cars not because they may appear better or in better quality but because they can get the same bang for their buck. People shop at Walmart to save money not because the product they carry may appear to be better. I do agree with Ford Design tastes and then when they do come out with a model that the public has some interest in they over price it, for example the new T-Bird, people liked it but not 45k+. Two things that could help them immensely. Remove the unionized pension/401k plans and make them private like the majority of the rest of country. This will cut operating expenses and it will cut down on the price of the cars. It would also force those employees a little more speaking room in regards to the companies well being as some would be stockholders. Eliminate the huge disparity in employee/public prices and make all prices public. People are not going to the dealership to sit there for hours to find out the real price of the car is out of the question. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 5927 Registered: 09-2005 |
Agree or not, Ford continues to irritate parts of their market with stuff like this, from an email sent by the American Family Association: "January 23, 2006 Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends. Ford Helps Sponsor Explicit, Sickening Homosexual Scene Description and video of the scene below Dear Karl, Rather than backing down from its support of homosexuality, Ford Motor Company has apparently taken a "rub it in your face" attitude. On the January 16 episode of "Dirt," which airs on the FX channel, Ford helped sponsor one of the most explicit, sickening homosexual scenes ever shown on television. Because it is so explicit, I could not even include a description of it here. I hope you will simply trust me. However, if you want to read our review of the scene, or to see the video of the scene, click here: http://www.afa.net/dirtscene.a sp Be forewarned, it is extremely graphic. Ford has made it extremely clear that they have no intentions of ending their support of homosexuality. Among other things, the company reneged on their agreement to remain neutral in the culture wars, increased their support of homosexual publications, sponsored TV programs pushing homosexuality and required employees to attend "diversity" training promoting homosexuality. For more information on Ford's track record, go to www.BoycottFord.com " Mediocre design, high prices and offensive marketing. Any wonder things are the way they are? | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 118 Registered: 08-2006 |
^^^have you seen the new volvo symbol? It speaks for itself  | ||
Mod Member Username: Mod Post Number: 81 Registered: 07-2004 |
I recall the excitement over the 1983 T-bird when it first arrived. It was such a huge story and a revolution in the car industry. It was the first car designed with striking aerodynamic lines. It was such a profound change that it got the industry focused on that one revolutionary aspect of design. Afterwards, the Taurus embodied that new innovative energy. So, what happened? I think it was the unexpected interest in SUV's beginning with the '94 Explorers that caused Ford to abandon their innovative pursuits. I don't recall anything as pivotal as that '83 T-bird design. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 119 Registered: 08-2006 |
This is another case of ford giving up. Turbo-bird great car great idea. Same thing for super bird. Both of these had as much power as lathargic 5.0 with a lot better gas mileage. The last models of the lincoln coupe 99 or so had a awesome engine that was underdeveloped. Anybody know where they can find a 5.4l dohc 4v v-8? Hint under 12 second quarter mile | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 943 Registered: 12-2005 |
Mod--"It was the first car designed with striking aerodynamic lines"---??? WTF? What about the 1934 Chrysler Airflow, the first American car designed with the aid of a wind tunnel?  Or the 1936 Cord 810?  | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 121 Registered: 08-2006 |
I'll go with cord! The airflow looks like a fat, retarded beetle! | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 538 Registered: 08-2006 |
The Mark 8 was a decent looking car too. Very dumb to kill that rather then update it a little to keep people interested. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 124 Registered: 08-2006 |
^Thats what it was. thanks cambrian. Also the 5.4 I speak of was first installed in this car then found it's way into the ford GT | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 944 Registered: 12-2005 |
The Airflow was the first truly modern American car. It featured an all-steel body with tubular steel framework, it moved the rear seat passengers from over the top of the axles to between the axles, placed the engine partially over the front axle and placed the wheels at the corners of the car. It also was designed with a wind tunnel developed aerodynamic shape at a time when most cars still had flat-vertical radiators and windshields fighting the wind. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 125 Registered: 08-2006 |
The early Airflows arriving at dealerships suffered from significant problems, mostly the result of faulty manufacturing. According to Fred Breer, son of Chrysler Engineer Carl Breer, the first 2,000 to 3,000 Airflows to leave the factory had major defects including engines breaking loose from their mountings at 80 mph.Within six months following the introduction of the Airflow, the vehicle was already a sales disaster. Adding insult to injury, General Motors mounted an advertising campaign aimed at further discrediting the Airflows. Most automotive historians, though, agree that the Airflow was shunned in large part because buyers did not like its looks. The hood, waterfall grille, headlamps and fenders were all merged into one anonymous lump. While thoroughly modern, the public was slow to embrace the Airflow. At the depth of the Great Depression, the car seemed to be too advanced, too different for many consumers. While Airflows sold in respectable numbers in its first year, Chrysler's traditional sedans and coupes far outsold the Airflow by a ratio of 2.5 to one, with first year Airflow sales at 10,839 units.-wikipedia So it was basically the first edsel? The only redeeming quality was near 50/50 weight distribution. I vote for the tucker as 1st modern automobile. | ||
Mod Member Username: Mod Post Number: 82 Registered: 07-2004 |
56packman, I was merely referring to the physical design attributes of the generation of cars that I grew up with. Maybe I should have stated that. But I want to emphasize that the unique styling of the 83 T-bird's "jellybean" shape was monumental in regards to the styling characteristics of the day. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 946 Registered: 12-2005 |
The Tucker was little more than an auto show concept car that 50 copies were made of to stave off legal action by the securities and exchange commission. The original ballyhoo about the car that Preston Tucker put fourth would have been a very modern car, but as-built they were little more than a drivable hand-kluged show car. Any of the gleaming Tuckers you see at a show like Meadow Brook is an idealized restoration, full of pieces adapted from contemporary production cars in an effort to make a "real car" out of an unrestored Tucker. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 1082 Registered: 01-2005 |
I just wonder what Lee Iacocca is thinking about all this. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 128 Registered: 08-2006 |
the first 2,000 to 3,000 Airflows to leave the factory had major defects including engines breaking loose from their mountings at 80 mph!!! how is that any different????!!!! Your precious beetle exploded at speed! and yes I'm aware of the restoration problem- I think only a handful were actually completed at the factory! Hence the need for restoration. It had a aluminum block! It got 166hp and 372lbft of torque! with only a single two barrel! it had a 4 speed manual transaxle! the car actually looked desireable. Lets not forget the steering headlight! Most cars of this day had archaic cast iron I-8 engines that weighed 4 times as much and only mustered 120hp. then when you equate the effiency of a transaxle they must have been land rockets in the day! This reminds me of the auto show argument were you ass-u-med I had never seen a 70's muscle car before. I get you are a hardcore chrysler guy! But unfortunetly chrysler no longer exists. | ||
56packman Member Username: 56packman Post Number: 947 Registered: 12-2005 |
I'm not a hardcore Chrysler guy (I'm actually a Packard guy), I have spent about 35 years learning as much as I can about all American auto companies. Chrysler has had many failures. The first 2-3,000 Airflows were defective, but they went on to manufacture them for 4 more years to very satisfied customers. OK--what of the 1922 copper-cooled chevrolets? there was a complete crash-and-burn, GM bought back the cars and dumped them in lake Michigan. The Vega--an aluminum block with cast iron pistons, overbored itself when the silicone lining wore out. The Ford Fairmont, no one big fault other than it was a total piece of crap. The transmission in the 50 (well, really 53) Tuckers were surplus Cord 810 transmissions that Tucker bought from Marshall Merkes, the guy who bought up the assets of Auburn Cord Duesenberg. You had a 1936 transmission (and a complicated one at that, I've driven and worked on Cords) in the "car of the future". My original point in all of this is that the 1983 T-bird was not "the first car designed with striking aerodynamic lines" that still stands. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 540 Registered: 08-2006 |
I liked the Heavy Duty AirFlow Dodge Trucks. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 129 Registered: 08-2006 |
Ok you know your stuff I will admit that! But the oringinal statement of "striking aerodynamic lines" was more of statement of style. I don't think thunderbirds were ever that aerodynamic. ever. |
