tzach
-
Posts
295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by tzach
-
-
Marketing does not consist of attempting to convince a horde of people that black is white.
Yes because everything said in a marketing campaign is 100% honest and truthful and no company tries to give a product an image they want people to perceive there product as. No one constructs advertising to convince people that they need their product for those reasons and that the product does these things better than any one elses. Advertising is just the pure straight forward facts put out there for everyone to make their own decission on. Yeah thats reality.
-
There are times when I get sick of this board and this thread is one of them.
Go back in time to when Ford introduced the first Explorer. The arguments given against the product in this thread could be made against introducing the Explorer back then. The only credible competitor had been the Jeep product, although IIRC Chevy beat Ford to market with their product. Bottom line was that the market segment was not that big. And yet what happened? Does anyone on this board really think that Ford (or anyone else for that matter) was prepared for the gargantuan sales success of the Explorer? It truly defined and created an entire segment of the marketplace that realistically had not existed before.
I'm not even implying that the Grand C-Max will be an Explorer redux; I am saying that using the past or even the present to always predict the future is a fool's game. The size or existence of the current market segment is not a predictor of success - Ford's ability to define the product and convince consumers that they want the product will be a better predictor of success. This is the kind of challenge tailor made for Farley. Ford's risk with this product will be mininal, as they have already stated that they intend to build several products off this chassis in NA. If it sells enough to help fill a plant, it's done its job. If sales are higher than expected, then it helps Ford with its product mix by moving more higher mileage product. Good again.
To summarily dismiss its prospects would be similar to dismiss the Explorer's prospects prior to its introduction in the early 90's. Most of the reasons I've read here could have been applied then.
Just to set the facts straight, the 4runner and the pathfinder 4 doors were already on the market when the explorer was introduced. I don't remember how long probably a couple of months or so. I remember reading an article on the explorer before it came out wondering if it could compete against toy and nissan being late to the game, I guess that question was answered. Would the segment heve exploded had Ford never intrduced the explorer, probably, but just because a segment is not big currently doesn't mean the right vehicle can't do great in said segment.
Just to be accurate the 4 runner and the pathfinder 4 doors were out before the explorer. I remeber reading an article on the new explorer before it came out and the author was wondering if the explorer could compete being late to the segnent, I guess that question was answered. Would the segment have exploded had Ford not introduced the explorer, probably, but just because the segment is not big does not mean the right vehicle can't make the segment grow.
-
Yes indeed.
I wonder why a CV with the 3.5 EcoBoost and a 6-speed is so impossible? The police get to keep something they are happy with, and they get better fuel economy and performance. They could even do the 4 cylinder EcoBoost, for urban use, considering the 2-v 4.6 is around 230hp. With a lighter 4-cylinder and a 6-speed, performance shouldn't suffer compared to the V-8.
So, for not a lot of money, Ford keeps a lock on the market, and doesn't threaten the resale value of their new vehicles. The wizards proclaim it's impossible; I must be missing something.
My 2¢
I think using the 3.5 Ecoboost and six speed is a good idea but I think some have pointed out that all the systems in the cv are not shared with other Ford cars making them more expensive. The other idea I read here that I think is brilliant is to use the 09 Taurus or 500 sheet metal on the updated platform under a different name. I wonder if any one at Ford thought of this and if there is any reason it could not be done with a minimal investment. Is the tooling for that sheet metal destroyed yet?
-
Just ask yourself:
Why would the government be concerned about what type of powertrains were sold?
In the C4C program they were concerned about MPGs and the environmental footprint. So they more concerned about hybids and 4 cylinder sales that say, Fusion sales in general (3.0 V6, 3.5 V6 Sport Editions being the lower MPG vehicles, and 4WD vehicles get worse gas mileage) . How record keeping (for whatever reason} can be considered "fraudulent" is laughable. Industry sales may be more concerned by nameplate, but they also keep records for separate body styles and powertrain configurations among many other things.
It was not a "get Detroit back on it's feet program." The Government can give 2 of the Big Three a bailout as a national measure, but the government cannot force it's citizens to only buy American Cars (it's not Democratic!).
I look at it this way, how did the dealers report the sales. Do they say they sold x number of cars and then break it down into sub-categories as far 2 and 4wd and engine size. If so then when all of these numbers from the dealers were tallied it would seem to be more work to break the numbers down the way they did. So why would that be done? However if the dealers reported them seperately then you can see the list ending up the way it did. But what possible reason would the sales be reported that way. The Camry is the best selling car but they don't report the 4 and 6 cyl seperately do they. It just looks like someone wanted the list to look a certain way, put a spin on it if you will. Noone I think will argue that spin is a big part of politics.
-
thats right they do not count... its simple math.. if a KIA dealership sells 5K cars then ya that dealer makes $$ but thats it.. but if a Ford dealership seles 5K cars then not only does the dealer make $$ but the Auto worker does and multiple truck drivers who drive the parts from suppliers and steel from the steel plants and not to forget the parts line workers and all of the business those people support....
to make it short the dealership make $$ on sales but the US and state/local economies are much better off when the cars are made here and not imported as 90% of KIA is and 60% of toyotas are....and yes the Fusion engine,transmission and other parts are made in the US its just not assembled here but thats much better then the KIA or toyota 100% imports
This is America and I support everybodies right to buy what they want, freedom is what makes this country great. So if anybody wants to buy a foreign car I support that right which many have fought and died for. But those people should not justify there purchase of a foreign car with cries of it is made here or sold here and thus creating jobs. Those companies can try to sell the image of being an American car company all they want but bottom line is they are not, they are foreign and the foreign company make a profit from those sale taking money out of this country. So buy what you want it's your right and everyone should support it, but don't tryt to have your cake and eat it too.
-
Having worked in a corporate IT environment for 23 years I can almost guarantee this is what happened.
The database required to track and qualify C4C sales has to list each model separately because each one has different fuel economy. That's just the way the database has to be laid out. Now if you ask a DBA to run a report to show how many were sold, the default would be to count based on the model that's already in the database - which is how you get separate numbers for each model variation.
What SHOULD have happened is the folks producing the original report should have done the roll-up by make and model, but they didn't. So Edmunds did the rollup for them.
Was there a conspiracy behind not doing the roll-up? Perhaps - no way to really tell unless you were involved in creating and publishing the report. My guess is nobody thought about it and just published the numbers as they came out of the database. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. Although I'm not totally discounting the manipulation theory.
Thanks for the info. I can see what you are saying, and if no one purposely left the data the way you say it might have been tabulated, it doesn't take a brain sugeon to look down the list and see the same models listed as different cofigurations. That being said I find it a little hard to believe that no one noticed this and at least asked if the models should be combined. Mabee there wasn't a vast government conspiricy b ut I would think someone made the decission to leave the list the way it was knowing that it would at least be misleading if not flat out wrong.
-
I didn't read everyones reply but I remember hearing Friday on the news that the Jap cars made in the US were dominating the sales
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display...05/pm-clunkers/
although they didn't give any figures.
That article gets to the heart of the argument, no mention of escape at all. People read that and see besides focus the rest of the top ten cars are foreign. But we all know that is not true, I think it erodes some of the confidence ford has built up and is misleading to the general public. Ironically you would think the government would want to report the list with more american cars on the list at the top to more justify the bailout.
-
Personally, I think the breakout by trim sold is exactly how it should be done. This entire bill is predicated by fuel economy. Each trim model that has a different fuel economy (in the realm of this bill) should be (and is) counted as a completely different car. I agree with that. That is exactly the results you should be seeing for this data. In the eyes of the "fuel conscious buyer", a 2WD 4cyl Escape and a 4WD V6 Escape are two entirely different vehicles in this realm.
I could understand lumping everything together if this was a sales race.....but it ain't, no matter how the media wants to spin it.
If you want to feel better knowing that Ford sold more vehicles because of this.... great. But stop looking for black helicopters.
I see where you are coming from but the escape is the escape. Yes there is a difference in the fuel economy
between a 4 cyl 2wd and a 6 cyl 4wd but the are still escapes and the 6 cyl 4wd still gets good enough milage to qualify for the program. They don't list the gas milage for each model on the list, so what reason is there to seprate out the models of certain vehicles because they get different milage when they are all eligible. The list seperated out is misleading to the average person, I don't think you could say otherwise.
-
Regardless, that's why I don't discount either side's point of view. But I would point out the media outlets' revised list (that includes all versions of a model, that are presumably eligible) is more in line with what common sense most people would apply to a "top 10" list.
The government list is incomplete.
If you really think about it what possible reason could there be for seperating models out than to get trucks out of the top spots. They are the only ones effected. A car model is a car model. And if you don't think a group would hand pick evidence to support their versionof things just look around you everyone does it. The politicians both dem and rep are the most guilty.
-
Two things:
1) Nobody is impartial, but it's rather counterproductive to make groundless claims like "more government crap"--at least try to understand what's going on instead of calling it crap and displaying no further curiosity about it.
2) 'sold for a greatly reduced price' as in what, exactly? Some guy trades in his '98 Explorer for the $4500 and then turns around and buys it back from the dealer for $3500? Or has his kid buy it back?
The problem is you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you have people trading in some seriously bad automobiles for C4C trades, and those cars are getting scrapped instead of being sold to people that have rusted out wrecks. I mean how many generations do you want to go back? And furthermore, if you're morally opposed to the program, why would you argue that it be extended back n generations?
I work in government locally and see these thing first hand, and have to deal with the state and see the stupidity there. Groundless claims, open your eyes to what goes on for political gain that we can see just from therre actions. both sides. I do understand whats going on needless destructionof good cars. As far as price I don't know but how much can the dealer be making off the parts. No engine or trans and the 4500 they are reimbursed for out of our pocket.
why do you have to draw the line somewhere and what is the problem with seriously bad autos being traded in. I thought that was the point to get the worst cars off the road. And why can't emmissions and safety be part of determining that.
I never said I was morally opposed to the program, I just think that there are ways it can be improved and run better.
-
As far as the Escort is concerned, I got the numbers from fueleconomy.gov, too, but I was using the 3-speed automatic (which seems to be the right comparison for the '10 Focus given that the Focus uses a 4-speed automatic). I had not even looked at the manual, which is my fault, I guess.
To be complete on this issue, fueleconomy.gov actually lists a large number of configurations for the '84 Escort, but most of which appear to be actually the same thing. Still, listing every single one of them:
3-speed automatic, 1.6L I4: 23
4-speed manual, 1.6L I4: 32
4-speed manual, 1.6L I4 (CALIF -- whatever that means -- since they also have "CA Model"): 26
5-speed manual, 1.6L I4: 24
3-speed automatic, 1.6 I4 (FFS -- and I have no idea what that means, either): 24
5-speed manual, 1.6L I4 (FFS): 25
5-speed manual, 1.6L I4 (FFS), Turbo: 24
5-speed manual, 2.0L I4, diesel: 39
5-speed manual, 2.0L I4, diesel (CALIF): 34
3-speed automatic, 1.6L I4 (CA Model): 23
4-speed manual, 1.6L I4 (CA Model): 27
5-speed manual, 1.6L I4 (CA Model): 25
3-speed automatic, 1.6L I4 (FFS, CA Model): 24
5-speed manual, 1.6L I4 (FFS, CA Model): 25
5-speed manual, 2.0L I4 (FFS, CA Model), Turbo: 24
5-speed manual, 2.0L I4 (CA Model), diesel: 34
Given these numbers, I think the 32 listed for the 4-speed manual must have been erroneous, as it is inconsistent with any other configuration.
And as far as the weight increase is concerned, that's across the board; FWD models also weigh more than they used to due to safety requirements and the "features" that we are not accustomed to have.
In any case, despite your assertion, it is not offtopic; the assertion has been made by you and others that a new RWD platform is essential for Ford's lineup. My feeling is: maybe it is, but only if it can be made to be more fuel efficient. If it is not, it would be a completely horrendous idea. I don't think anyone, Hyundai notwithstanding, has demonstrated that it can. (Hyundai Genesis isn't particularly efficient; it is just not any more inefficient than the Azera.) If Ford makes major expenditures on a RWD platform and is unable to substantially improve its fuel economy, it would be just committing financial suicide.
The problem in comparing is that there really are no rwd cars that have gas milage as a priority, they usually are performance type models. And as far as the '10 mustang the 4.0 is an ancient engine what will the same car get with the 3.5
-
1: Define 'a lot'. Also explain to me how someone driving an '84 Cutlass will be able to AFFORD a '98 Explorer? Or is it your idea that the government should some how or another -give- these cars away? How would you propose doing that in a manner that wouldn't result in riots, lawsuits, and tons of negative press?
2: Justification of the program is as follows:
a ) stimulate the economy
b ) reduce fuel consumption
There's nothing in the mandate about better emissions, so......
1. more than 1
2. the justification would still be there but since they said nothing about emissins it doesn't matter, more government crap that we should care only about what they tell us. The cars are being destroyed so what off the car can be sold, I don't know but can it approach the market value of the car. The cars could be sold for a greatly reduced price that would mirror what the dealer cluld get out of the car in parts.
-
I don't think people complaining about the scrapping of these cars realize, that, in bulk, they are bottom of the barrel used cars.
Most used cars on the road today get better gas mileage than mid/late 90s SUVs & trucks. All those 3.8L V6 GM sedans--all of them get better gas mileage than SUVs and trucks, ditto the Vulcan Tauruses and Sables of that vintage, not to mention all the Accords and unsludged Camries. Those 90s sedans don't qualify for CARS--their mileage is too good. Therefore there's no incentive to trade them in on late 90s SUVs.
About the only beneficiaries to such a program would be owners of even older SUVs and trucks and how many of them are there?
----
BTW, The Escape is undoubtedly the most popular vehicle because it's in general terms about the same size as the mid 90s Explorer (the most popular C4C trade-in), but gets something like 50% better gas mileage. And is screwed together better with better safety equipment. What's not to like?
Depends on what you call bottom of the barrel. Yes 90's sedans get better gas milage, and where you are those are probably the oldest you see in general. By me, northern nj you barely even see anything before 2000. But in many poorer parts of the country you can bet there are a lot of 80's and even some 70's cars still on the road. And even if those get about the same milage as mid- 90's explorers and the like I bet the emissions are no where near as good. And even besides all those good environmental things don't you think someone driving a 77 ltd that is a pos and can't afford anything better would love to get a 98 explorer for free or at least a very low cost. Much better than scrapping prefectly good cars.
-
Uh come on, let's cut out the political BS. There are over 230 million vehicles out there and many of them are over 10 years old, and destroying 750,000 of them is not even a small dent. The used car lots and those being sold by private owners are as numerous as ever. I'm not personally benefitting from CARS and could care less, but if it helps out the auto manufacturers and puts some people back to work, then great. Already I read Ford is running three shifts at WAP with lots of overtime including Saturdays because of CARS. That is GOOD. That is what it's all about. The idealogues need to get a grip and get some help.
I'm not saying c4c should not be done especially if it is doing good for ford. But 10 years old is not that old I have a forty year old car that runs great. To destroy these cars when there are older worse cars on the road owned by poor people who can not buy a new car and take advantage of the c4c program when they could be given to yhem for free and get even worse cars off the road is typical political stupidity. If you don't think politics enters into these decisions and that they can't think past the end of there nose you need to get you head out of your a**. I don't care how many cars are on the road it is a complete waste to destroy good cars to say ooh lok what we are doing for you. The cars being sold on used car lots and by private owners have nothing to do with my point, its the fact that good cars are being destroyd when there are worse one out there owned by people who can not afford to ber helped by the morons in washington.
-
I don't know if the program, in general, is unpopular with voters.
As to why each model is accounted for separately, that's simple.
C4C money is factored by mileage improvement, right?
Well, all 6 variants of the Escape get different mileage--in fact there may be 7 variants of the Escape (4x2 manual 4, 4x2 automatic 4, 4x4 automatic 4, 4x2 6, 4x4 6, 4x2 Hybrid, 4x4 Hybrid).
They aren't added together because that's just not how government works. I don't think there are darker political forces at work. Rather this is bureaucratic inertia.
The program coordinators identified x number of qualifying vehicles and dagnabbit, they're going to report the sales for each separate vehicle!
The models are counted seperately for political reasons, there is no doubt in my mind. I work in municipal government and even at that level the political bs is staggering to me, you would not believe what goes on for political reasons. I can only guess what goes on at the federal level. If you think for one second that the gov wants suv's and trucks on the list and not small cars I have a bridge i would like to sell you. On another note the fact that the c4c cars are destroyed is moronic, typical government stupidity. There are good cars being destroyed when there are poor people out there with far far worse cars who can not afford a new car who would benefit from these cars, then you could destroy those older cars with even worse milage and worse emissions. why didn't any of the morons in washington think of that. Simple it's all about selling the people on LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR YOU as long as the public buys that they could care less if it is true or not. And believe me THAT is true.
-
Ford will be bringing the European Transit Connect to the States in 2010. They are talking about adding a package called Family One. It consists of things for kids and parents like built in hand sanitizers and walkie talkies. It also has drawing boards on the side panels in the back, a projector on the projected on the roof, scooters on the door and back packs in the seat. It also has a place under the cargo space for a stroller. I think they should make this a package for most Ford Lincoln and Mercury models except the F and E series models and small cars like the Mustang and the Fiesta.
-
The stick shift might be fading into the sunset but sorry I do not see how the powershift any more than the manumatics hold a candle to driving a real stick. I guess it is better than an auto but not by much for the manumatic. I obviously have never driven the powershift, but I doubt it will be the same as a stick. My next car will be a Mustang and I assume you will be able to get that in a stick for a while yet. :happy feet:
-
I do not post much but needed to give my .02 cents on this subject. As Ford goes so does Mercury, in other words if you sell enough Fords the Mercury's will follow. If you sell enough Fords there wiill always be people that want something different, so gove them an upper level Ford with unique trim, interiors and options and as long as there is enough Fords out there enough people will go to mercury just to be different. Lincoln however needs different bodies and unique engine sizes. So concentrating on Ford and Lincoln is the right strategy, get Fords sales way up and then make the nicer Mercury"s and they will sell. Yes I do own a Mercury - 1969 Marquis Convertible with a 429!
Toyota Says Company Is ‘Grasping for Salvation
in Competing Products
Posted
Don't celebrate to early, first I bet Toyoda is exagerting how bad the situation is because it makes any recovery seem more miraculous. Also we have seen in the past how single minded the Japanese can be when they have a goal to reach. They will not sit and flounder and make the same mistakes they have. Now that being said I would love to see there market share in this country go down about 50 % over the next ten years. But I won't count my chickens before they are hatched.