akirby

You see a problem that affects some vehicles and you assume that the problem is widespread (based on a few posts in an online forum) and that it's a big problem for Ford and that Ford is losing customers because of it and the world is coming to an end. Other people read the same forums and see some problems but put them into the bigger context with a little perspective. Nobody is saying that these problems don't exist - just that they aren't the end of the world.

Exactly. I'm sure Ford considers diesels for North America at least once a year, maybe more often. Just like they consider whether they should bring other vehicles and drivetrains to the U.S. Somebody at Ford knows exactly how much it would cost for a Diesel Focus and how many they could realistically sell and at what price. Diesel fans don't buy VWs and Audis. Audi and VW fans buy diesels.

Yes, it should be covered.

And apparently his wife is the registered owner for both vehicles.

And that's why they're still pretty well off.

Hard to believe that was overlooked. I'm sure we'll see tires or water barrels. I guess Hendrick went a little too far with the engine RPM limit.

Don't forget the current MKZ was "in the can" before Ford decided to kill Mercury and revamp Lincoln. So whatever design decisions had been made are no longer applicable.

I'm very very sorry. I confused you with svtenthusiast.

Nobody here - and I mean nobody - has once suggested that your problems or anybody else's problems were not real. Nobody has ever suggested that this wasn't a major fiasco for Ford. Nobody has ever suggested that pulling a fuse is an acceptable procedure. Nobody has suggested that all of the problems have been fixed. NOBODY. So get off your high horse and stop calling everyone else apologists just because we don't all think the sky is falling. The reality is that with the new software the MAJORITY of owners are happy with MFT with only a few folks still having major issues. Are we happy that some people continue to have problems? No. Not at all. It's not a good thing. Should Ford be doing everything in their power to get all of these problems fixed? Of course. Are they? As long as they continue to put out software revisions and replace APIMs on cars with severe problems - yes. Will some customers be pissed and go elsewhere? Yes, that's why I called it a "Fiasco". Is EVERY customer having problems with MFT? Of course not, as evidenced by repeated posts here and on other boards. For every customer who won't buy a Ford because of MFT, there are others who will buy a Ford for the first time because of MFT. It's definitely a double-edged sword. We're being realistic about the problems. You're not. You think that other people with no problems somehow makes your problems less real or less important? It doesn't. Get over it.

So anyone who reports no problems or only an occasional minor problem is a liar (like my daughter)? If it was such a tremendous disaster for Ford then why aren't sales tanking? You're such a frickin' drama queen.

What's better - slightly lower marketshare and higher profits or the same marketshare with lower profits?

It depends on whether it's eligible for rebate protection - that program is available but I don't know if the dealer has to register it at the time of order or not. Your dealer will know.

I think it may be closer than you think.

Because there are other parts of the system that aren't controlled by the head unit power button and those are the ones that need to be reset. They could design it to work that way from the beginning but that obviously wasn't done. This should never be necessary, especially after the software update. I had to pull the fuse in my daughter's focus twice. It wasn't fun but it wasn't the end of the world either. Having to do it for a year would be really bad. I was worried when I heard BeSquare was still involved. This is what happens when a car company tries to write software. I would expect the same problems if Microsoft tried to build a car.

Minimal efforts? Hiring a dedicated team of over 100 folks (with experience from other luxury brands) including a totally dedicated design dept. is a minimal effort? Unique tophats, interiors and features is a minimal effort? Upgrading the dealership experience using Clefs d'oer (sp?) to emulate the best 5 star hotels is minimal effort? Putting out 7 vehicles in 4 years is minimal effort? I understand that the jury is still out on whether they can pull it off or not but I simply don't understand the folks who say this is business as usual and the same thing that Lincoln has done for decades. It's not. It's not even close. Just because they aren't dropping a billion dollars on ONE car so they can claim to be a "BMW fighter" does not mean they aren't trying. It's not the exciting and sexy way to do it, but it's the fiscally responsible way to do it. What good would it do to have a CTS-V type vehicle if the dealership experience still sucks? You might win the C&D comparisons but the customers won't be happy.

You forgot the part where you have to swing a dead chicken over your head....

I assume it started when mfrs wanted to put the new models out before the end of the year, then it got backed up to September or so. They had to make a rule that allowed the new intros in September but since the rule was based on years and not months there was nothing in the rules that said you couldn't launch a 2014 model on 1/1/2013. I don't think it was intended to allow that - I think it was just a side effect.

Wow - that is hard to believe. A major faux pas in my opinion.

The greenies want to force adoption of more electric vehicles so they think the mfrs should sell them at a loss if necessary just so more people can afford them. Others just want to be able to afford this shiny new technology. The Leaf is just slightly less expensive.

That's what should happen from a strategic perspective, however given what they just went through with Oldsmobile, then Saturn and Pontiac they may not be able to afford whatever it would take to get rid of Buick and GMC right now. So I can give them a temporary pass on that. However, I'm not sure they WANT to get rid of Buick and GMC and that's what concerns me along with still having a rental fleet queen and financing sub-sub prime Sonics.

You could even keep the Buick brand in China but I've said over and over that you only need 2 in North America - Chevy and Cadillac. I think the main reason we still have Buick and GMC (other than Buick in China) is to keep the dealers in business since most Buick and GMC dealerships seem to be paired together. This stupid notion that somehow a person who would buy a GMC pickup would not buy the exact same damn pickup with a Chevy badge if there was no GMC is, well, stupid IMO. The same people said the same thing about Mercury and they were totally wrong. Look at Pontiac and Oldsmobile and Saturn - has GM lost those sales? Don't think so.

I totally agree. I guess we lost track of what we were arguing about.

I don't have numbers but the full sized SUV market has dropped significantly faster than the overall market and nobody sees that market share rising too much in the future. Folks who moved from fullsized SUVs to crossovers probably are not going back. The only reason this is relevant is that the lower potential volume means that Ford needs to look harder at the ROI from developing a new vehicle for this segment. What made sense when Ford was selling 300K Expeditions and was a slam dunk (like moving to a one-off platform) probably doesn't make sense today.

I disagree that losing market share is a precursor to losing cost-competitiveness. In fact, you may need to give up market share for the sake of profitability. I hate to defend GM but this a stupid article.

Do you disagree that the entire fullsized SUV market has gone down dramatically over the last 10 years? That's all we're saying. Not that there is no market at all.