povertyknob

The lease on my Expedition is coming to an end in a couple of months and I'm considering another Expy, an F 150 Super Crew , and the Explorer ST. The EB35 in my Expedition has not been a disappointment at all and if I'm going to downsize I'd like to see 2-3 mpg better on average. The Explorer with the 3.0 sounds like something I'd be interested in but if it offers fuel economy only marginally better than the Expedition I'll probably go that route (Expedition) again. The only 3.0 TT I could find for comparison was in a Lincoln. I wouldn't expect to see any discounted lease prices on the new Explorers any time soon so the 2019 Expedition probably won't be much more to lease.

It's not exactly apples to apples , but the brochure for the 2019 Continental shows 16/24/19 for the 400hp/400lb-ft engine. The Explorer is roughly 100 pounds heavier. r

You guys need to clean this up. I know it's a contract year and everyone is a little on edge, but customers can and do read these forums and i'd rather they didn't get the impression we were all neanderthals. Complaining is one thing but some of the language is offensive. Thanks.

Standard cab won't work for me. There are times when I'll carry four adults,a baby carrier , and a dog. My 2005 F 150 Super Cab fit in my garage just fine. The new ones...not so much. when Ford cancelled the Ranger and Sport Trac programs they also effectively stretched the F 150 by a foot by eliminating the 5 1/2 foot bed as an option. I assume they didn't sell too many in that configuration, but that was before they cancelled the "compact" trucks.Hopefully they'll consider offering that configuration for 2015.

You make an excellent argument against building another compact pick-up truck and I can't disagree with a word of it. I find myself in the apparently very small minority of buyers who love everything about the F-150 except the ever growing footprint. I'll hold on to my Sport Trac until the new F-150 debuts in 2015 , but if Ford can't find it in their hearts to make the Super Cab in a configuration that isn't a foot or so shorter I'll have to consider the CanyonColorado. For a guy that spent 40 years working for Ford that;s going to be a hard thing to do.

I'd be delighted to replace my Sporttrac with a new T-6 Ranger if it were available. It's the perfect size for my needs with ideal power and off road capability. I hope Ford can make a business case for making it available here soon. In the meantime, they could make the F-150 I want a full foot shorter by offering the Super Cab with the 5 1/2 foot bed and short wheelbase.

Go to Myfordbenefits.com and click on "pension". Then click on "payment information" and "payment amounts". That will tell you exactly how long your supplement payments are going to continue. You may not like what you see,but at least you'll know.

I retired under the previous contract in 2008,turned 62 a year ago, and I've continued to receive the supplement for nearly a year now. I've received my last supplement since I'm old enough to draw 80% of my social security as of two weeks ago. I'm not sure what happens to those who've retired since the last contract. I went to the Ford Fanatics Forum for more info and found that I had actually posed the same question over there several months ago after reading a similar rumor on BON. I couldn't get an answer there or from reading the contract highlights. It would be a good idea to make a phone call if you're considering retirement.

It's too bad it will "only" wade through 30 inches of standing water....otherwise I'd be tempted to fly over there, buy one, and drive it home!

But I did reference "comparable" vehicles. Personally, I don't want a regular cab truck. I frequently need to carry more than three people. And I like to have a truck with a nice option package. Neither of those is possible with the regular cab F-150. The regular cab T-6 is nearly the same size as the regular cab F-150.....but the SC/CC F-150 is 21 inches longer than the T-6 Crew Cab. Sure, the T-6 that I'd buy is 90% the size of a comparable F 150, but that 21 inches is significant when you're pulling into a garage. The wheelbase on the T 6 Crew cab is also shorter than the F-150 SC/CC, making it more maneuverable. I realize it may not be profitable to bring the T-6 to the U.S. market at this time and I'm not suggesting they do so. I was just sort of wondering what that vehicle that was 90% the size of the F 150 would look like.

The 2012 F 150 SC and CC are both 231.9 inches long according to the dimensions I'm seeing. A comparable T-6 Crew Cab is 211 inches long. While that does work out to 90%, that extra 21 inches makes a lot of difference if you'd like to pull it into a garage and close the door.

I'm not forgetting a darned thing. I've been retired for 3 1/2 years after putting in 40 years at Ford in assembly. and later as a tradesman. I'm hoping active employees will look at the big picture and do what's necessary to get every Ford worker recalled and every tradesperson back on his/her tools.That means some people are going to have to vote yes on something they probably find a little distasteful...but for the greater good. If all I have to give up is a "Christmas" bonus that's a small price to pay to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. I do appreciate that the thoughts of some of you are with the retirees and i want to say "Thanks for your support". .

Chicken and egg,,,Are they disaffected because he's causing controversy.....or is he causing controversy to gain standing? Either way he's in it for #1.

I was answering a question from Deanh -not stating my own belief. Some folks in the UAW understand the situation. Others are willfully ignorant.

The hourly folks feel like they were part of the reason Ford didn't have to take a bailout.You can disagree with that-and I do, but that's their reasoning. What's mind boggling is that Ford agreed to give them more than GM and there is still such a groundswell of no votes.I'm not sure when the IUAW lost the trust of the rank and file but it makes it pretty easy for agitators to stir things up.When the International called the plant reps to Detroit they should have made it damned clear that this was as good as it was going to get and required every plant chairman to indicate that he/she understood. That there is such resistance to what seems like a reasonable contract kind of takes the United out of UAW.

I'm not a bob king fan boy at all. His rhetoric was unnecessary and inflammatory. But he and the IUAW negotiators sat down and hammered out a contract that should be good for both the company and the union, took it to the membership, and asked them to vote it in. From that point forward the flames have been fanned not by King but by dissidents within the UAW. It will take a heck of an effort for the IUAW to calm down the boys with the pitchforks.

How can we expect active employees to agree to a contract they're not happy with if the retirees aren't willing to give a little? The active employees are faced with a questionable contract that many are considering signing for the common good. We need to help.

For the life of me i cannot understand why some members refuse to take a longer term view. People are unhappy about what has been given up,i get that. But until Ford pays off a lot more of it's debt those things aren't coming back..if ever.Let's get more jobs back to the U.S. and employ more Americans. Bring everyone back from layoff. Then there's leverage to bargain.

I'm 62 years old and retired from Ford...so you must be a real geezer to call me "son". How much money are we talking about,really? A Christmas bonus? I couldn't expect active workers to give up anything if I'm not willing to take a little hit. Exactly how much is it?

While Mr. King may have used poor judgement with his complaining about Mullaly's compensation earlier this summer , I don't see him (King) as the problem right now. There are dissidents within the UAW-mostly at plants that have plenty of work-doing a lot of rabble rousing at the moment..It's almost like they're trying to pick apart every line of the contract and one wonders if their intent is to discredit Bob King. I was discussing the contract on a forum with a seemingly bright fellow, and I kid you not.....I got the impression he felt like a no vote was his way of standing up for"truth, justice and the American way"... As to trusting the negotiators, I think the dissident faction may have poisoned the well on that one too.FWIW there is such an enormous gap between the perceived realities of the 'yes' and "no " factions that it could cause some real problems in the UAW going forward.

How are retirees getting harmed in the tentative contract?

By and large the public doesn't resent Mulally more than any other millionaire. They care about the markup on the F-150 in terms of monthly payments rather than whether we're entitled to more of it. Every time Ford hires lower tier workers there are literally hundreds of people standing in line for applications, so that's not going to generate any sympathy for the UAW. What's to stop the Company from opening up any new contract they might agree to if they are forced back to the table? I wish I were amongst those who felt going back to the table would give workers a better deal. My thought is that whatever they give you in one area will be taken back in another.In four years there is a very good chance Ford's balance sheet will look a lot different. You can be assured that every time the UAW negotiators pointed out Fords recent profits the guys on the Company side pointed at the billions in remaining debt. It's never a bad idea to stand up for what you believe is right. I'd prefer to do it when the UAW has better leverage.

Judging from what i see in the Employee forum the inmates may have taken over the asylum. Anyone advocating a "yes" vote seems to be immediately attacked. Where I had assumed that reason would prevail it appears that mob psychology and momentum are conspiring to rule the day.It's always amazing how many people think they know more than the people who sat at the bargaining table for weeks.It could still be saved by the plants that are promised new work. I hope so.

People's opinions about us are only going to get worse with all the bad publicity from turning down the contract. It seems the only folks who don't realize Ford avoided bankruptcy only by borrowing money before the economy tanked are in the UAW. Don't think for a moment that some people's buying decisions aren't influenced by their feelings about union labor. Ford enjoyed a boost in sales because they didn't take a bailout. Even forcing the company back to the bargaining table without a strike risks losing all that goodwill.Is it worth it? I don't know. I do know there seems to be a lot of name calling and profanity on these forums lately. Isn't it possible to offer different opinions without attacking one another? I just read a post where someone called anyone who disagreed a spineless whimp(sic) and then went on to call for solidarity. Just because it's the members forum doesn't mean others don't read it. Don't care what others think about us? Go ahead and curse and rant, but don't act surprised when prospective customers buy Hondas or Toyotas after reading these forums. I think a "no" vote is a bad idea , but anyone is welcome to disagree with me. Let's keep it civil...if possible.

Please bear in mind that not every UAW member is blind to the situation at hand , or to the ramifications of rejecting the contract. It does get to be an emotional issue when some people are continually banging the drum for blaming all the Automaker's problems on the greed of the UAW. As Pioneer said, there are some other issues that some members object to. Personally, I'm OK with what's been offered. I look forward to jobs coming back to the U.S. A contract vote at the UAW is a not unlike a national election: 40% on the yes side,40% on the no side, and 20% undecided. Unfortunately, in this case, a good many undecided voters and "no" voters can't or won't take the longer view of things. They will always view the company and in some cases the IUAW in an adversarial way.While I might see the Chairman's salary as the cost of saving Ford there are some who resent taking cuts while he's cashing the checks.Best case is that the plants that are promised new work vote overwhelmingly for approval and the contract passes by a simple majority. Worst case is (like the last modification package) the short term thinkers get so much momentum that they intimidate otherwise reasonable folks into voting no and forcing them back to the bargaining table. Two things wrong with scenario no. 2: A The public thinks we're greedy jerks and B, Ford has a firm idea what their labor costs need to be. Changes to the contract will only result in" robbing Peter to pay Paul".