povertyknob

If I read it correctly,the single biggest cost disadvantage for the domestic automakers is related to retirees/dependents. The transplants simply do not have these costs. It appears that Mr Romney is suggesting chapter 11 bankruptcy as a way to get out from under those costs in any form of re-organization tied to a "bail-out". As an active employee, I might expect to be offered some sort of "buy-down" of my wages and that would be hard to swallow.As i understand the chapter 11 process,retirees pensions would be reduced by at least 70 percent. And unless the Veba is funded better than I think it is health care coverage would go away. I don't see any upside to this for retirees/dependents. Mr. Romney "forgot" to mention that. I could be mistaken in my thinking-I hope so-but it looks like Mr Romney is pretty comfortable throwing retirees under the bus.

What a great idea , and one that I've been suggesting for a long time. Adult Americans have the right to vote and , i think , the obligation to educate ourselves as to the process. It isn't that hard to register. Most of us can get to the polling places , or find someone to take us. Would a simple test discourage some voters from coming on election day? Probably so. But a voter of either party affiliation-or an independent- who can't pass a short civics test probably isn't making an informed decision with his or her vote anyway.

Does anyone have any idea when the "late availability" colors on the Sport Trac will become available? The brochure shows some pretty flashy looking colors but I can't "build and price" one with any red in it. I'd like to order one after the first of the year if I can get the one I want-but not if I'm limited to only four colors. I guess what Henry meant to say was "you can have it in any color you want as long as it's silver, white,black,or blue."

I'm curious about the "intelligent" 4wd system in the v-6 4x4. It's good to hear your enthusiasm for your escape to this point and I hope you'll let us know how you feel about the off road capabilities. I have an AWD Edge now , but I'm considering an Escape next time to get some comfort level about going off the pavement. I don't expect to do any rock crawling with it , but I'd like to get an idea how it compares to the control trac system. The Escape I rented in Florida was 4x4 , but the only way I knew was the badge on the side, no buttons , switches or the like. I hope you'll check back in when you get a feel for it. Thanks.

Probably a poor choice of phrasing by me. What I meant is that when there was only the "Big 3" the idea of one of them going belly up was intolerable in terms of job loss and political fallout. It was a "no-brainer" to help Chrysler. With a considerable number of our friends and neighbors employed by transplant facilities and their suppliers I worry that our politicians typical knee jerk reaction to any crisis , which is to test the winds of public opinion , will be influenced by an increasingly negative perception of the UAW. We become less significant when there are people out there saying we made our own problems and should deal with them. I certainly do not consider us insignificant but politicians are a different lot.I know people who would not consider buying any domestic vehicle , and so do you. I know people who won't buy domestic vehicles because UAW workers are , in their opinions , "fat lazy and overpaid". They vote. If Ford gets in trouble and elected officials are tasked with deciding our fate I worry that enough of these constituents could might make enough noise to sway the decision. You and I think we're significant. It's the politicos we should worry about.

I share your sentiments regarding the "too big to fail" concerns. Years ago the Government helped Chrysler avoid going under in part , I think , to avoid collateral damage in terms of job loss both at Chrysler and suppliers. At this point I don't think we could expect that same help if Ford were teetering on the abyss. The transplant facilities employ so many people that the number of folks involved if Ford went under might seem insignificant to the decision makers. A larger GM might well be a different story. Regarding the vacuum created by having fewer American made products available , I see a real dearth of loyalty so far as buying"American". The lines of product content are pretty blurred anymore. I would hope that customers would look to buy Fords. We need to get better designed vehicles with better powertrain components to market now.

Anyone have any ideas what a GM/Cerberus merger might mean to Ford? It looks like it might actually happen. I'm not sure if it puts more or less pressure on Ford in the marketplace. One thing for certain , the UAW is going to be really unhappy about it since there will be more jobs lost if it happens. I haven't seen much discussion of it on these threads. Are we just "whistling past the cemetery?"

The auto industry is a cyclical thing and we're in a low period now. Ford is in business to make money, and sadly, they have turned to the bean counters to try to save the bottom line. After ignoring the Ranger for a decade while gorging on the profits from the F-150 they find themselves in the position of having a great profit opportunity and no viable product to sell.It has been an unprofitable vehicle for years, so when development budgets got tight they elected to let the Ranger die a slow death instead of finding a way to make money on it. That's what bean counters do. Fun trucks for off road? nah. 3.5 with 265 HP? nah. More option content? nah. Call me a cynic or worse if you wish , but I think they're only making the Ranger because they don't have openings for the employees who would be on lay off if the plant closed. They have ,and will, continue to ignore calls to improve it because they will not spend another dime on the program Do you have a brochure for the 2008 model? Get one for the 2009 model and you will see the same pictures!! I have been the proud owner of 4 Rangers in the last twenty years or so and I may even get an '09 if the price is right. Because it's the right size and a dependable little truck and they haven't screwed that up ...yet. But as a customer I am disappointed and a little insulted that they want to sell me a vehicle that hasn't had any major improvements in at least a decade. It is faster and cheaper in the assembly process to make fewer body styles and offer fewer options. At this point , Ford is saying to go ahead and shop the competition if you want those things.Ranger sales have deteriorated because it is becoming stale. Bean counters say we can't improve it because it isn't selling well. Sounds like a self-sustaining problem.

I've tried using the "Build and Price" feature on Ford's website and it appears that several of the 09 models are a closely held secret.I like to do some research a few months before I change vehicles and it's annoying that information is denied on several vehicles. I could understand it in August or even Sept.. but if they are indeed shipping vehicles it seems that consumers should be able to check them out online. Consumers know very well that 09 vehicles should be available and I'm not sure that it's a good idea to try to clear out inventory of 08 models by hiding the 09's. I've never tried selling cars so I could be completely wrong. I'm guessing that discounts are what will move the 08's off the lots but more traffic in the dealerships might be created by making more info available for the 09 models.

Dang it! I waded through 110 posts to see if anyone was going to mention that. There goes my chance to stir the pot. My own excitement upon seeing the next Explorer was dampened a bit when I saw the doors. My first thought: I don't want an off road mini-van. I really think they were simply checking customer reaction to the idea. It does beg the question..why in the world would you consider sliders for an off-roader and not the Flex? Maybe the perception of the "mini-van stigma" has dissipated since the Flex was designed.

The people I mentioned were indeed tradespersons. But none work in the trades at this time. One is a commercial pilot , one works for the state , several drive truck. Ford has offered a lot of paid training in the last decade or so and both tradespersons and production employees have had an opportunity to learn other skills. It's a matter of doing what is right for you , the individual. Be careful about being swayed by anyone insisting you're working for peanuts if you stay.

It's great that it may be built here , but I'm disappointed in the time frame. It would have been nice if Ford hadn't given up improving the N.A. Ranger years ago. I realize there's no money available for it now. But if they had kept up with designs to accomodate safety standards and planned ahead to put the 3.0 p.i.p or 3.5 in it they wouldn't be worrying about having to allocate money for a new program.

I know several people who had over 30 years seniorty that left for another job. They were productive employees who saw an opportunity to better themselves in terms of financial security and give some younger employees a chance to stay with the company. Without the buyout they would not have retired. My point is that it just made financial sense for them to retire and each of us needs to consider it in terms the overall picture. IIRC the DVD we received before the first round of buyouts understated the compensation of one of the examples by simply ignoring the TESPHE contribution when comparing what he would receive in retirement. Whether it's the company telling you you're working for peanuts or lower seniority employees , it's important to remember that they feel that your retirement will benefit them in some way. It's important to retire when it will most benefit YOU.

With the current N.A. Ranger stagnating due to inattention and the F-100 apparently tabled it seems like the T-6 will be imported. What do we know of it's capabilities? I'm sort of anxious to see it if there is an improvement in the drive train.

How about just poor sentence structure ? I'm wondering if it meant to say that the F-100 was canceled......and that the T-6 "would" be imported. At least that was my take after reading other articles.

I would agree that the 4.0 will be in the ranger so long as that plant is open.While it has decent torque numbers the fuel economy is nothing to write home about. But that's what is going to be available because Ford gave up on the Ranger program nearly a decade ago. Hindsight is 20/20 , of course , but if ford had made just a minimal effort to upgrade the powertrains the last few years they would be in a position to salvage some truck sales in the era of $3.50 to $4.00 gas. I'm not sure why it makes more sense to develop a new F-100 when that market could have been captured with a continuously improved Ranger. Bottom line , they were looking for plants to close and the Ranger was not profitable with cheap gas and fuel economy no better than the F-150. Talk about a self -sustaining problem!

The 3.0 Vulcan used in the ranger is already gone. It was a low tech , but efficient little motor that paid for itself and then some. The 3.0L inthe Fusion/Escape is newer and might be around for a while. It was bumped to 240 HP for 09 and might be an option for the Ranger.....if Ford wanted to spend any money on the Ranger program. I don't see it happening.

The 3.5 is rated at 262 to 265 horsepower in "normally aspirated" form and would , I think , be a decent upgrade from the 4.0 at around 210 horsepower. I would imagine Ford will reserve the ecoboost versions for vehicles with higher profit margins. In any case it might be a while before they are available. I'm not sure how many 3.5 motors will be available during the changeover to ecoboost production so that might change the thinking. I'd sure like to stop at a dealership in a couple of years and see a Ranger GT with the ecoboost V-6.

Ford has been incredibly stubborn about spending money on updating the Ranger. The 3.5 gets decent fuel economy hauling around my AWD Edge , which is a pretty heavy vehicle , so I'd expect better fuel effeciency than the 4.0 gets in the Ranger. The 3.5 isn't set up for big torque numbers in the Edge since the six speed is designed to get it rolling pretty quickly and get decent fuel economy. The combined capacity between Lima and Cleveland seems like enough to provide enough engines. The problem I see is that with the F-100 being tabled and the announcement of importing a small truck from overseas Ford will be loathe to spend another dime on the current Ranger.

It would have been nice to see something about a commitment to build it. Extending the Ranger two or more model years makes a fellow wonder where this is going. Also , nothing was mentioned about the T-6 (?) being brought here. I've had several Rangers over the years and they're fine trucks. But they've been ignored for years as far as upgrades , especially powertrain , and I don't see Ford spending development money on a lame duck now. I'd like to think they're keeping it just until F-100 and , or T-6 get here but I'd like to see it in writing. I still think if the current Ranger had the 3.5 and six speed they couldn't keep them on the lots.

I'd really rather compete with the Wrangler. I priced a nicely equipped Rubicon at $30,400 plus tax etc. Even as a Ford employee I'd be reluctant to spend $35000 - $50,000 on a Bronco. If I remember correctly , the original Bronco was very much like the Wrangler in size , if not capability. I think a similar vehicle might be a winner in today's marketplace.

Sounds reasonable. I hope the rock -climbing capability wouldn't translate into horrible fuel economy. I could live with V-6 Wrangler type mileage. Since it's a wish list , I'd like to see a manual transmission available.

I agree that it is unwise to rush a product to market. My proposal is to take whatever time is reasonable to develop a profitable mid-size truck. What I'd like to see is for Ford to offer more options in the smallest F-150 to provide an alternative for the folks who'd like a "garageable" vehicle in the meantime. I understand that, as a general rule, it's more cost effecient to limit option packages. I'm not a bean counter or a marketing guru. I'd just like to think we could take an existing ,high quality, vehicle and change the content level to interest a segment of consumers who will otherwise migrate to the competions mid size offerings when the Ranger goes out of production.It would also help to continue leadership in the full size truck market. It's a wish list,right?

I have a brother -in - law who owns three of the little Korean imports. He once opined (after a few beers) that UAW workers were "fat , lazy , and overpaid" There is no question in my mind he bought them because they were cheap...or that he would fail to give them glowing ratings in a CR survey.Otherwise he might look like an idiot driving three Hyundais when he could use A-PLAN. Of course this is the same guy who drove 50 miles away to get an extra $200.00 for his trade in the last(only) time I got him a pin number. I had suggested a reputable dealer,a straight shooting sales person and a dealership six miles from his house. Sure , you know what happened next- he whined about having to drive too far for service and getting bad treatment after the sale. It's frustrating to see CR ratings trumpeted about like they represent unbiased testing. Hopefully potential buyers use some research sources with less bias.

I'm going to call NESC today to get some clarification on the wording of the exit dates. My understanding is that you could begin leaving April 1 , but be able to stay through the end of June -at the discretion of the company. The significance of that in my case is that I may get a year added to my retirement credits if I can stay until shutdown. Just to throw something else out there , the Freep says GM employees can get less money but will be allowed to roll it over into a retirement account. I have a feeling that applies only to an amount not in excess of the annual contribution limit.Skilled trades are being offered 62,500 as opposed to 70,000 at Ford. Like I said , that's from Freep , not official. Note: update at 11:03 A.M. : NESC says begin leaving April 1 -through June 30. Looks like some wiggle room depending on plant needs. For some reason I'm reluctant to sign up for Aprils Fools Day...