marc-o

Good thing your mom brings you down a sandwich everyday for lunch, otherwise you might not have the energy to google more pictures to add on the rest of the afternoon.

That's pretty much true. There are way more segment leaders from Ford in Europe.

I know it won't change a damn thing,but I agree. I think old classics should be kept original, or at least tastefully done. Just one of those things I really don't "get". Same thing for modern cars... I'm so sick of hearing people talking about putting 305 in a Miata... :blah:

Only on Blueovalnews do I read about Honda recalls from the Pacific Rim. I notice the end of the article also mentions a Mazda recall - guess you all didn't make it that far down... :shrug:

I saw an article online a couple of days ago that adjusted sales for the number of selling days in September vs Sept 05 (something only a couple of companies had done), which normally done when the month for which sales are reported has fewer than the comparison, but not when it has more (like Sept 06 vs 05 does) Anyways the results were interesting because aside from Toyota which obviously still had year over year gains, Ford was the only other manufacturer out of BMW, Chrysler, Honda, GM, Toyota, Nissan that actually had a gain. Mind you Ford's gain was less than one percent, but all other company sales (non Toyota) were down 6% or more! Definitely Sept was good for Ford, hopefully that was for the right reasons and not because of excessive fleet sales. Too bad I don't have a link, oh well.

Here's the bottomline as I see it: Honda has a pretty long history of delivering technological breakthroughs that work for the mass market in emissions and engine technology. They were the first to bring hybrids to NA (outside Japan), and even though it was small and didnt sell well, they did it. Billy promised us profitability in '06 and something about 250k hybrids in the near future. Both of which are examples in a string of promises not kept. If Ford has somekind of groundbreaking annoucement about its diesels, this is the time!!! However my thoughts are at this point there's a more urgent fire to douse. Ford clearly isn't getting good return on their R&D spending, for whatever reason. Whether it's investing in the wrong things, not bringing projects to market, or plain excess fat, that money isn't reflected in high-tech vehicles. There's nothing wrong with lower-tech vehicles, if that's the case don't burn money on R&D.

You'll never find that out, competitive secret. No one is going to willingly divulge what their cash cows and loss leaders are. We can estimate and speculate, we're not going to get exact numbers. Those estimates "per manufacturer" are precise but ever-changing and regarding the *whole* lineup so not very useful other than to quantify what we already know (legacy costs exist). Even if we knew what vehicles made money and which didnt, there are always times when you have to rely on sales of vehicles that don't make much per unit. Per unit vehicle costs include overhead which is impossible to precisely assign in a changing product mix. In other words - even if we knew exactly what vehicles Ford made money on and which it didn't, what could we do about it? What could Ford do about it? There's sacrifices to be made for being a full-line vehicle manufacturer and as Ford recently learned, focusing on your cash cows for too long can leave you without much in terms of less-profitable but still desirable vehicles (that still give traffic in the showrooms) when fuel prices peak.

Well... I think that eliminates any suspicion of an anti-Detroit bias in the media. :rolleyes:

So true... people seem to forget that too often. Sometimes the right package arrives but at the wrong time. Sometimes a good package arrives but it's not for everyone. I don't think there's any denying some of this is pure dumb luck though.

Very nice car, but awful name. Spectra to Cee'd? They've gone to ultra-generic to overly artsy very fast. A car's name is important. Ass-tek. Pee'd.

For what? Rentals? The Caliber will have completely fizzled out within 18 months, just like the 300/Charger/Magnum.

At this point if Chryco wasn't owned by the Germans, they'd be looking at Chapter 11 over the next 6 months. I think.

I couldn't agree more. I am usually quite critical of Wall Street's short term outlook, but four years ago we were told Ford would be profitable in 2006 at the latest, now we are being told 2009? That's not exactly around the corner. No less than three turnaround plans in a decade (with 4 years to go)? Ford was just about the worst prepared company when gas prices went through the roof - was there NO foresight? I wouldn't blame anyone for being highly skeptical of this latest turnaround. Although I think there are many steps in the right direction, there are many things missing and at some point you can't expect people to believe in you if you haven't delivered. Ford has had some successes over the last few years, but it's clear where the trend is going.

Oh come on... when the Taurus was a top seller it was because it really was a top car. Rarely if ever is a car a great seller if it's uncompetitive. Point is the Camry is still the yardstick for midsize sedans, which the Taurus hasn't been for some time and the Fusion is still aspiring to be.

Well that is the attitude many people who shyed away from domestics because of bad experiences have. Improved quality *MIGHT* make a difference for customers the next time they are buying a car - for some people that's every 10 years.

I think the article is pretty severe on Wall St, although overall, I agree with the point the author is making and most of what has been said. Short term thinking can yield short term results, which is great if you're trying to hold a stock until you get a good gain, then dump it... but the real world, where huge companies employ thousands of people in vast factories/buildings, you can't turn productivity, profitability and payroll on or off like a switch. These people, all people, need more certainty in their life than the whims of Wall St analysts. Analysts provide valuable financial opinions, the problem is greedy executives listen to them too much. If they are told ways to increase their stock value (which executives usually own), they'll do it. Why? Because most CEO's and executives ARE Wall St people! GM is notorious for this. Car companies, any companies, run by financiers who have Wall St credentials are going to be trying to please that crowd, and those are usually not people who have worked their way up from within. Not to say that outsider blood isn't welcome, you just have to look at where it's coming from (the airline industry ain't all that bad methinks). Of course we can't forget, these Wall St bad guys are ultimately trying to please shareholders. Yes they are usually significant shareholders themselves, but other shareholders can include the government, your bank, your employer, your pension fund, and in the case of most middle class Americans, yourself, one way or another. A lot of people are demanding to see the money now, not later. Those people don't all live in NY.

Whenever any company tries to clamp down on unauthorized trademark usage it's *usually* a stupid move, in my opinion. This is definitely still one of those cases - my guess is that this is probably just a threat, at least I hope so because Ford has bigger fish to fry (this is NOT the way to generate revenue). As for Steve's Mustangs, that's exactly the kind of victim you wouldn't want suffering, but is obviously the easiest target. I can understand wanting to keep cheap knockoff parts off the market, but some non-Ford uses of the term "Mustang" can clearly be benificial to the franchise. Overall this would be a stupid move that would affect the most loyal enthusiasts most...dumb.

Bingo. Is that so hard to understand?

Trans Am is a 3rd rate series now when put against American Le Mans, Speed GT, and any Formula series. As much as I hate it, NASCAR is also wildly more popular, and has far more visibility. You are right though, Jaguar SHOULD be arrogant, in fact probably moreso than BMW!! (who only really became a true lux carmaker in the early 90's). If you read further into history, you'll see that (probably) to this day, the US government has a long record of helping foreign firms and countries in order to line the pockets of US businesses, presumably behind a guise of "aid", although in truth probably thanks to intense lobbying. In other words, if you think any of this was done for any other reason than to one day control the Japanese market, you are wrong. It just didn't succeed, that's all. This is all semantics though... if you keep going back in history there is always dependence on others for new ideas, followed by improvements from parties who are not the creators (eg, Chinese inventing gunpowder). Going back in history serves a purpose in principle, but in reality, success is what you make of what you can get. That's why the Europeans developped gunpowder and ended up taking over parts of China, including the British, who then got their asses handed to them by Americans who are now in danger or being overrun by the Chinese using their own economic systems/policies. Well what do you know, history is cyclical and what goes around comes around.

Of course you COMPLETELY overlook the fact I pointed out, that this is a practice used by Ford and many other manufacturers, to this day. As always, you're reading into this what you want to see, and then you do it again in whatever replies you read. In your biased rush to criticize the competition, you've completely overlooked your blatant bias towards Ford, who has done the same thing for years, if not decades, without admitting to it (as if that's any better). In other words, pot-calling-the-kettle-black, something you do very well and all too often- WHATEVER!

I'm not refuting anything but you always have to be careful when considering where the parts come from. You are only peeling one layer of the onion. Sure a part may come from a US supplier, but in many (many!) cases these are sub-contracted yet again to companies overseas. Just like an auto manufacturer buys parts from suppliers, they buy parts from sub-suppliers (their own suppliers). There is no doubt about that. My point is a lot of manufacturing happens overseas no matter how you look at it. From an economic point of view, a piece directly put into a Kia from a factory in China goes through fewer middlemen (and so generally speaking ought to cost less in pure profit) than a piece going from China to the US, then to Ford (or even Toyota, who also buys from US suppliers, though clearly not as much). With GM now building entire engines in China, I'm never too quick to hop on the patriotism/nationalist bandwagon. Sure GM would have you believe they're doing good, but what does it matter if they make 500 million profit in the US if they invest 10 times that much in their Chinese operations? Capital expeditures are just as important as profits, if not moreso, because of tax implications. This is an issue that has been over-simplified and the fact is it changes too much and is subject to too much secrecy (from companies and suppliers) in order for anyone on the outside to accurately say what is what and where it really all comes from.

I also work in banking (not a VP though), and I think this is pretty much absolutely true. It's a generalization, but a fairly accurate one. Just Friday a doctor was trying to kill time, turns out his Lexus was in the shop. Naturally I asked why, he said "just regular maintenance, it's a 94". Explorer 4x4 - You make very good comments; people adjust their spending to their income naturally, it's a shame that our current society doesn't place more emphasis on savings (which, incidentally now, Chinese and Asian cultures DO). People are too tolerant of having payments on everything, and I dont feel much compassion in those cases because they're mostly a result of personal choices (buy now or save for it). HOWEVER, there is no doubt that in extraordinary circumstances like 9/11 or after Katrina, or numerous other unpredictable catastrophies, the government has not stepped up to the plate (or worse, kept its promises) as it should (I feel). Even though it is the right thing to do, I don't think everyone that is/was affected will ever really get justice. That is, unfortunately, what "they" mean when they say life isn't fair.

Let's get this straight - unless you have anything other to back this up, you're saying that based on this quote, Toyota "hid" defects. Literally (as in, gramatically analyzing the sentence), what he is saying is that "quiet recalls", which they refer to as "service campaigns", amount to "hid[ing]" something. Has Ford ever had "quiet" recalls? Has GM? Hasn't everyone? I'm not saying Toyota hasn't pushed quality aside for a bit, but what are you trying to do? Prove they're not perfect? Anyone who says anyone is is being foolish. If you are trying to say they're admitting to a cover-up, you're stretching the limits of language comprehension. Anything you can come up with eh range?

This is absolutely right. Whenever I see a 500 now it's got someone with white hair in it (and it isn't bleached). There isn't anything wrong with the car, but it does have a big perception problem. It was sold and without a doubt designed to be innoffensive and practical. Even though that's what a lot of people need, it's not what they want - people want to look like they are driving a badass, cool car, or at least something with somekind of prestige. A new model (which the 500 essentially is, to anyone under a certain age, which comprises a large segment of the population) has to build that perception from the start, and I don't think Ford did that. It could be a hard image to shake off. The complaints of being underpowered compared to competition and with safety features and awd aren't mistakes with the car, but they do back up the notion of it being a practical car for more sensible people. Camrys and Accords can pull it off because Toyota and Honda are already perceived as being better than Ford (for cars anyways). On the positive side, I'd say Ford has definitely not made the same "mistake" (which is a marketing mistake IMO, and I use mistake loosely) with the Fusion, which has hit a more mainstream note.