evok

RWD 2008? - No - I think Edmunds is confused. As much as I would like to see that happen, it is just not possible or planned. MKS 08 yes - MKR no

With Saturn as I have said, not being associated with GM is the plus. But yes a redirection can happen if the product is right. Nissan has done it with the Altima, etc, DCX with the original LH an LX. It can happen. GM just has to design a business case for realistic targets. I would not call a Malibu an aspiration vehicle or a LaSabre which have performed well in recent quality studies. The issue is the dometics still have plenty of perceived bagage as far as the public is concerned. Toyota as far as the buyer is concerned is consistent. The domestics are not.

You are absolutely wrong. There is enough difference in ECE and FMVSS/CMVSS in crashworthiness alone to justify independent certification for the given market based upon the program. Because of differences in tests and test velocities the countermeasures to meet certification requirements may be different. That will include structure, air bags, deployment timings and the list goes on. And that does not include the tests for marketing such as NCAP and IIHS. Not to mention that requirements do change in all of the markets, and these companies have to factor that into the plans.

Saturn as a brand has a number of things going for it. 1) Great dealer satisfaction. 2) The brand is not perceived to be associated with GM in the greater publics minds eye. My bullet number 2 is what saved the brand. IMO - Outside of Cadillac it would be tough for me to get into a GM vehicle, but I would consider a Saturn. With GM diddling with Saturn for so long, and outside of the VUE there has been no growth, I am sure all of those once loyal Saturn owners have moved on. With this Euro focused brand being a WIP and the Aura being too new, it is too early to gauge how the public is reacting to the new look. But in the publics mind it is still a differenet type of company and a different type of car and because it is not associated with GM, that is a good thing.

Obviously you do not COLLATERAL AND BORROWING BASE OVERVIEW

No need to. I think after this action by Ford we can agree with their situation. I found that interesting also and also agree.

Please go and read the Collateral and Borrowing Base section of the SEC filing. That section identifies what was used to back these loans. Including in that filing at the end, are the assets, and intellectual property used to back the these recent loans. Some of the trademarks used include: Ford, Mercury, Lincoln brand names, brand cues, and brand identifiers such as the Ford script, Mustang Prancing horse and hood scoop. I will be crystal clear - Ford borrowed against every thing they have to get this loan so the company has a shot to survive.

If you took the time to actually read the filing you would see that was a direct quote from Ford. Ford is preparing to have a negative cash flow of 17B over the next two years. That is on top of the 3B that will come out of their liquid position in the 4thQ. Might I remind you, that "you" are the one that brought up profit and loss. Not I. Cash flow and profit/loss are different line items on the ledger.

"During the period 2007 through 2009, we expect cumulative Automotive operating-related cash outflows of about $10 billion and cumulative cash expenditures for restructuring actions of about $7 billion. More than half of this $17 billion cash outflow is expected to occur in 2007. This cash outflow primarily reflects substantial operating losses in our Automotive sector through 2008 and cash expenditures incurred in connection with personnel separations. It also reflects our expectation to continue to invest in new products throughout this period at about the same level as we have during the past few years, or approximately $7 billion annually."

Come again - they just announced that they morgaged the name Ford, its script, the Mustang prancing horse and other stuff to borrow 18B and will spend 17B in the next 12 - 24 months. That is cash spent. Let's step back and rationalize that for a second. http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFramese...2F2006&pdf=

Just announced today, 17B cash flow demand next year. So much for Ford having 20+B in the bank and that being enough as per old discussions.

For someone that likes to come across as knowledgable about automotive, it sounds like you do not even have a subscription to AN?

Tell me Jesnson all about federal regs!

HUH read what I said.

Do you have proof it does? Just like a good BS artist you seem to have all the answers. Show me some facts.

Well Fords US volume is now at 1980's level. But today the overall market is at 17 million.

You are missing something. I HAVE the ACTUAL Ford prodution numbers and there is not a significant difference between the AN numbers. Bottom line - Fusion sales in Sept. were on par with past months. It is not like Ford was selling 20 - 40k a month like the competition in that segment.

I have shown numberious times with data that there have been plenty of Fusions inventory going into Sept 1 2006 and there have been enough product in the stystem that supported the dealer base during the month of Sept. 2006 and have answered every challenge you have made. Your argument is weak since you choose not to support your position with accepted facts and your reliance on a press statement that is not supported with industry accepted facts and runs counter to the Fusion sales level. Yes Ford might have a tight supply of 2007 MY Fusions which cannot be decifered from the data but that is not what Pipas stated. There appears to be plenty of Fusions in inventory to support the app. 10-12k Fusions a month. Fusion sales in Sept. were off the inflated high in August of 15k units sold but sales in Sept. were not catastropic and inline with the rate at which the vehicle has been selling. Yes it is an estimate but an accepted estimate given no one divulges real time data. Is their slop in the number yes but not significant. There is enough of an indication from the available data and data that I have access to that is not readily made public for me to make my ascertions and conclusion. You on the other had have presented yet again only an opinion based upon a Pipas statement. OK - Ford imploded the last 6 years and has been in denial about it. I take nothing from Ford managment as fact. Ford management has lost all credibility, and it will take time and consistent results to earn that back. Therefore I will question everything that comes out of the shattered Glass House.

BS - There is a good indication that there is not a shortage of Fusions given the demand. They might be tight on 07s but they still have to move the 06s in inventory also. Look at the facts instead of unsupported opinion.

When the sales for the Fusion which has been on the market almost a year average app. 10-12k per month, it appears Ford has just the right amount of inventory given real demand for the vehicle. If Ford wants to start dealing again like August or substitute the Fusion for the Taurus at Hertz, that is another story. Very easily, given the data at hand. If the July change over was a material event then might I suggest to Ford a PR. But based upon the August sales, Ford was not concerned.

Add another 11k for CA sales to the numbers presented earlier. Least we forget their is carry over inventory from 05CY that must be factored in if you want to do this right! 2005 Production - 43k 2005 US Sales - 17k CA sales were only a few hundred.

Fusion ytd sales - 111k Fusion ytd production - 150k I would say their is float.

Besides the guidance given in the quarterly statements. GM for one issues the public monthly Make and Model production PR's available on their site, and some other manufacturers including Ford do not do as GM and release the monthly numbers only directly to industry associations/organizations including automotive news. Why some OEMs choose to not release the info on their corporate website I do not have an answer for that. But that is the way things work. If you want greater transparency contact Pipas. I just looked at the actuals and AN estimates and the difference is not worth noteing except the MKZ was under reported by a significant margin. Surpise it is at full production.

Auto News production numbers are very accurate and are derived from production information published by the OEM on a routine basis. Just as AN compiles sales data published by the OEMs on a months basis. Instapundits should be well aware of that! Right!

Please re-read my first post on the subject. There recent AN data was posted. In your haste to express your opinion you missed some of the facts. Hence the bold.