grbeck
-
Posts
4,308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by grbeck
-
-
19 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:
I'd recommend an escape hybrid for your wife. Escape hybrids are notoriously reliable, some would say even more reliable than your old focus.
I believe Farley say Ford is aiming to have long term quality that's on par, or superior to Toyota and Honda. He mentioned that in their latest earnings call unless I'm mistaken. But I do agree with you. Short term quality is nice, but I want Ford to be the go to brand when it comes to cars that are considered reliable even when they have 200k miles on them.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's the reputation some Ford models in a few decades, the maverick is already seen as the spiritual successor to the 90s rangers, including in the reliability department. So it's not all bad. It sounds things are turning around. Hacket did a lot of damage to the company imo, and that includes quality, but Farley seems determined to right the ship. Good guy, the best leader Ford's had in decades imo.
The challenge for us is that our teens want more room in the back seat, and my wife wants a vehicle with three rows of seats. The new Escape is nice, but not big enough in that regard.
-
There are several aspects of quality. There is workmanship (build quality), short-term quality and long-term quality (i.e., reliability).
Based our on our ownership experiences, Ford needs to make sure long-term quality is consistently good. Our 2005 Focus SE sedan was a beast - went 235,000 miles with only two major problems (alternator went at about 130,000 miles and idle air-control valve soon after that). The engine and transmission were fine when we traded it, and the air conditioning still blew ice-cold air. And my wife didn't baby that car. If anything, I had to repeatedly remind her to schedule regular maintenance for that car.The Focus was so good that, without hesitation, we traded it on an off-lease 2014 Escape SE that had only 4,000 miles on the odometer. At 95,000 miles the radio head unit failed completely, and the automatic transmission went out completely at 113,000 miles. (Our experience was not unique - the transmission in a friend's 2014 Escape failed at 75,000 miles!) It also took the dealer seven months to get a replacement transmission. That has soured my wife on Ford. I like the new Explorer - particularly the 2025 model - but I haven't been hearing consistently good things about those.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Kev-Mo said:
I'm just a fan of Ford Trucks, I don't know the in's and out's of all the labor contracts, asking for help comprehending how it works.
Please help me understand why it has to be Mexico? Why can't Ford just produce in the 'right to work' southern states like all the Asian manufacturers that seem to doing just fine?
It really looks bad when Toyota, Honda and Hyundai/Kia can produce in the 'USA' but all of our home teams are in Mexico.
Why can't Ford go to TX or Mississippi or Alabama or and other of the many places?
It seems absurd to me that a company like Ford has to be unionized in the USA but can go to Mexico and not be. That's a 100% recipe to suck jobs from the USA. Who came up with that bad idea?
As I understand it, the contract with the UAW specifically states that it will represent line workers at all Ford plants located within the U.S.
Ford could try to remove that provision during future contract negotiations, but if we thought that this strike was nasty...
-
2 hours ago, Footballfan said:
If you look at the highest inflation in 50 years we have seen this decade, that 20 percent does not seem so large.
The issue isn't wanting a raise. With the inflation we've experienced, I certainly don't begrudge members this opportunity to "catch up" in real income.
The issue is union leadership that seems to take delight in hurting the company that provides jobs to its members, and demonizing the Ford executive team. William Clay Ford, Jr., is hardly the Harry Bennett of the 21st century.
And the idea that the UAW is going unionize the transplant operations with these tactics is a pipe dream.
-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, twintornados said:
Still another useless post only to bash unions. How do American built cars fare in foreign markets? Terrible as the Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Euopean markets tariff the hell out of our products. But sure...it's the Unions fault and every American auto worker should be happy making less and less so that they can sell cars cheaper and appease shareholders. There is a fine line and blaming unions is not part of that line.
Ford's strategy has been to open local factories and build vehicles tailored to the conditions of those countries.
Visit London, Paris or Tokyo...very few people will want to drive an F-150 or even an Explorer in those cities - let alone pay for the gas to keep it running.
-
The new grille doesn't work. It's not terrible, but the overall shape doesn't mesh with the other design elements.
The interior improvements are most welcome...I sat in a 2024 Explorer at the Harrisburg Auto Show this weekend. My wife wasn't wild about the dashboard, and another woman who was looking at it told her husband, "This screen looks dated."
It was interesting how many people immediately checked out the center screen in the vehicles. That was their first priority when looking at the interior.
-
25 minutes ago, jniffen said:
They did that with the Pinto. Nothing drastic on the overall design, but mechanically making improvements along the way.
I do hate to hear from those who really don't know, the wagon did not have the rear end gas problem and that the News organization to create the explosion problem had to jack up the front end of the other car to cause the gas tank to break open.
I will say, 'Yes, Ford should have never let the car leave the factory without the $65.00 correction part.'
The federal agency not only jacked up the front of the Chevrolet Impala (a much heavier car), but also turned on its headlights (to ensure a spark) and filled the Pinto's tank to capacity. That is because the first tests did not result in an explosion!
The Pinto met applicable government standards for fuel-tank integrity (also note that the standards were in flux when Ford was developing the car). The Mother Jones article wildly overstated the number of Pinto deaths due to fire.The car's overall safety record, when compared to competitive small cars of that era, was better than average. If we limit it to fire-related accidents, the Pinto is only a little worse than average (and it wasn't the worst - the AMC Gremlin was the worst).
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Footballfan said:
It's most likely this will be dragged out in the courts for decades to come.
I can see this being quickly repealed when it starts affecting people.
Like many policies driven by virtue signaling, support melts when voters have to live up to their professed ideals (Exhibit A in that regard is the reaction of self-proclaimed "Sanctuary Cities" to actually having to deal with an influx of illegal immigrants).
If new-vehicle buyers - who tend to be more affluent, and thus more likely to vote - suddenly find themselves paying considerably more for a vehicle whose supply has been limited by this mandate, they will loudly let their state representative know how they feel about it.
-
4
-
-
9 minutes ago, rperez817 said:
Regardless of "sales figures for Toyota's hybrids" nowadays, the company's Beyond Zero, multi-pathway strategy that puts too much emphasis on hybrids and FCEV (fool cells) is irresponsible because it weakens the company's competitiveness amid the ongoing automotive industry revolution. Electrek wrote about this earlier this year. Toyota shareholders raise concerns over Tesla's EV lead (electrek.co)
Means nothing. A person can buy ten shares of Toyota stock, and still "raise concerns" at shareholder meetings.
That doesn't mean that the majority of shareholders agree, or that the "concerns" are valid.
Take away government incentives that encourage the purchase of Teslas, and see what choices consumers make.
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 11/17/2023 at 8:40 AM, rperez817 said:
If Toyota refuses to put forth a "great EV effort" ASAP and continues its irresponsible hybrid push (as evidenced with 2025 Camry), DeluxeStang you may get your wish of Toyota heading to the bottom of the automotive history trash bin sooner rather than later.
Apparently, "irresponsible" as applied to the new-vehicle market really means "one that real-life paying customers prefer," given the sales figures for Toyota's hybrids.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Rangers09 said:
Let me see if I am understanding this correctly.
The State Government is implementing a rule that 35% of light-duty auto sales must be BEV by 2026. However, this requirement will NOT impose any requirements on consumers or dealerships. If the rule is enforced then who exactly will be purchasing and selling these vehicles? Only way it can work, if these requirements are enforced, is the manufacturers will need to reduce ICE production and significantly increase building BEV's that many consumers, at present, don't want. Therefore, with reduced availability of the vehicles that are selling, prices and ADM's will increase significantly - supply & demand economics and BEV's, which sit on dealer lots, will become relatively cheaper.
Spin doctors may like the voters to believe that there is no direct requirements impacting their options of purchasing a vehicle, but if these requirements are enforced, the indirect requirements will certainly have an impact, especially on those wanting an ICE vehicle.
Only a Government could dream up this stuff, as when the complaints start, they will blame the manufacturers and dealers.
This is a state that doesn't let citizens pump their own gas - a task that millions of people in neighboring Pennsylvania manage to handle each year without setting themselves on fire or blowing up the filling station.
-
4
-
-
17 hours ago, rperez817 said:
That's related to a civil engineering guideline for traffic control called 85th percentile speed. IIHS described this concept, including its limitations, on the same webpage I shared earlier in the thread.
Also, IIHS provided the following information comparing speeding vs. speed variation.
Of course travel speeds are increasing on highways. Vehicles are increasingly quieter and less prone to rattle or vibrate. I learned to drive on a 1973 AMC Gremlin. In that car 55 mph felt like 80 mph. Our current vehicles can cruise effortlessly all day at 85 mph. That's perfectly safe on an uncrowded limited access highway, so of course people will drive at those speeds.
-
3 hours ago, akirby said:
I’ve looked at the raw data and the conclusions are not as clear cut as IIHS would have you believe. Some studies found they went down. Most did not measure actual speeds and they didn’t take into account number of vehicles/miles traveled which obviously increases every year.Of course higher speeds will result in worse injuries in most cases, but speed differential is usually more important than actual speed for causing accidents and seatbelt use is a huge factor in fatalities. Also congestion - which gets back to measuring actual speeds vs limits.
Seat belt usage is critical. I've noticed that a fair number of local fatalities involve the driver and/or passenger being thrown from the vehicle. That tells me that neither was wearing a seat belt.
-
4 hours ago, rperez817 said:
Excellent question Chrisgb. IIHS found average travel speeds increased when speed limits were increased, as did fatalities directly attributable to speed.
The federal government studied this issue in the early 1990s...it found that changes in the posted limit had little effect on travel speeds. The IIHS claim that the repeal of the 1995 limit resulted in higher speeds is therefore not necessarily conclusive.
Also note that, under the definition used by the federal government, a "speed-related fatality" encompasses accidents involving a drunk driver who was exceeding the limit; a person fleeing the police during an official pursuit; and accidents during inclement weather. If a person is driving at 50 mph during an ice storm, and has a fatal accident, that is a "speed related fatality." The term isn't limited to someone driving 80 mph in the 70 mph zone.
In other words, take everything posted by the IIHS with a boulder-sized grain of salt.
Finally, we repealed the national 65 mph speed limit in late 1995, which coincided with a long economic boom. When the economy is doing well, discretionary driving increases, and that brings about more accidents and fatalities. People are more likely to be killed driving home at 1 a.m. from a party or a bar, as opposed to driving to and from work during the day.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, rperez817 said:
Labor costs are about 5% of vehicle product cost to automakers, so it does not "cost you far more to build the same vehicle". And the proper solution in this example is to get the competition who pays its workforce $60/hr to raise rates closer to $85/hr.
Labor costs are roughly 12 percent of total vehicle costs. In an industry where engineers work to shave pennies from the cost of a component, that is a significant percentage of the total vehicle cost.
-
1
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, ice-capades said:
A grand total of 81 percent of productions workers and 90 percent of skilled trades workers at MAP voted to approve the new contract between the UAW and Ford.
In my opinion, these approval rates indicate that Ford paid way too much to reach the tentative agreement. Now Ford, and then GM and Stellantis, can enjoy paying the "price" as their vehicle costs increase an estimated $800-900 each. They may try to absorb part of the increased costs and improve efficiency but there will be an impact on vehicle pricing at some point.
Puts into perspective the UAW's attempt to cast William Clay Ford, Jr., and the Ford executive team as the reincarnation of Harry Bennett.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, ice-capades said:
And Ford's market share alone was 25% at one point. And back in the late '80's (?) and '90's when volume sales were the rule, regardless of profit margins, Ford had 6 of the top 10 selling vehicle lines. The Thunderbird decline started with the '87 Model Year and then accelerated dramatically when the all-new '89 Thunderbird was introduced with substantially higher prices due to all the standard equipment that was added. The Taurus decline accelerated after the introduction of the all-new '96 Taurus "Oval" design.
The market for personal luxury coupes began declining in the late 1980s. I remember a survey that showed buyers of sport utility vehicles tended to be those who would have bought a personal luxury coupe.
With the 1996 Taurus, Ford tried to replicate the success of the 1986 model. Unfortunately, Ford forgot that the radical approach works when a company is coming from behind (as Ford had to do in the early 1980s, and Chrysler later did with the Dodge pickup in the early 1990s). When a company IS one of the leaders in a segment, then it's best to build upon the success of the prior models. The 1996 Taurus had many worthwhile quality and mechanical upgrades, but the styling was too radical, and not that attractive.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, rperez817 said:
And UAW should point out the fallacies in those corporations' arguments regarding so called "cost advantages", "growing market share", and "job security".
What fallacies?
The transplants don't enjoy cost advantage over the old Big Three...? That has been extensively documented. For example, the daily unscheduled absentee rate at the Big Three plants generally runs at about 12-14 percent. It's non-existent at the transplant operations.
The market share of GM, Ford and Stellantis is not growing. The former Big Three now have less than 40 percent of the domestic market. GM alone, during its heyday, had between 42-44 percent.
-
6
-
-
9 minutes ago, akirby said:
The workers need to ban together and tell these assholes to take a hike or they won’t have any jobs at all.
I'm still trying to understand the mentality that "wounding" your employer is a smart strategy. Really? That is just plain stupid.
-
4
-
-
31 minutes ago, iamweasel said:
Yet a few hundred miles away in San Antonio, lower paid non-union Toyota workers are happily putting together as many Tundra's as they can. This is just ridiculous......
Are the transplant operation workers really paid that much less than their Big Three counterparts? It's my understanding that the transplants pay competitive wages (to head off any unionization drives).
Their cost advantage is rooted in less generous health care plans, a reliance on 401(k)s as opposed to defined benefit retirement plans, much less restrictive work rules and better attendance rates (which boost productivity and quality).
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, jpd80 said:
I thought so, these are ordinary folks that just want a good deal and to get back to work and earn a decent wage. Hopefully the message that people want this done ASAP filters back up the UAW hierarchy.
With inflation, no one is denying that Ford workers need a raise. But trying to suggest that the Ford Motor Company is running a sweat shop, and cast William Clay Ford, Jr., as a 21st century Harry Bennett, is ludicrous.
I know plenty of workers who would be thrilled to receive the current level of pay and benefits, let alone what is being offered by the company.
-
3
-
-
On 10/21/2023 at 9:09 AM, Chrisgb said:
>>>And Honda Called Crosstour? BMW X4?
Blecch.
According to the Honda website, Temple of vtec, the next Accord will not be a sedan. It will have a configuration along the lines of the old Crosstour (one hopes it has a considerably better proportioned design).
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:
Give me a break! The Battle of the Bridge?? How many years ago? Was Bill Ford even on this earth then?
Oh you forgot about the "five dollar day"..Why don't you talk about the recent UAW leaders who are in the "can"..and if not in jail they paid how much in fines?
And as to your comment that many know the history of Ford's "abusive paternalism" probably a greater percentage think Walter Reuther was a tackle for the Lions.
The Battle of the Overpass happened in 1938...when William Clay Ford, Sr. (father of Bill Ford) was a teenager and not even married!
Does UAW leadership really believe that they are going to rally the troops by recalling a violent labor dispute that happened over 75 years ago (not to mention that all of the key players in that fracas have been dead and buried for decades)? And this mentality will inspire organization efforts at the transplant factories? Really?
As for Ford's "abusive paternalism" - from what I've seen over the past 40 years, "abusive paternalism" on the part of Ford apparently means paying line workers very good wages and benefits, and handling the UAW with kid gloves.
-
5
-
-
45 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:
Problem with that analogy is that Studebaker had a lot of problems besides labor costs, such as not having the economies of scale and captive suppliers like the Big 3 had.
Uncompetitive labor costs exacerbated those issues.
In 1954, even UAW leadership encouraged UAW members in South Bend to vote on a contract that brought wages more in line with those paid by the Big Three.
Ford CEO Farley Regrets Not Tackling Quality Issues Sooner
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
MY wife wants three rows of seats because we are being asked to transport friends and/or team mates of our kids to various events. She wants the extra seating capacity.