grbeck
-
Posts
4,308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by grbeck
-
-
On 10/18/2023 at 2:30 PM, GearheadGrrrl said:
Keep in mind that's not news but an opinion piece.
The editorial attributes very specific - and controversial - views and actions to UAW leaders. If the editorial has misrepresented either their views, or what they have done in support of those views, those named in the editorial can sue the writer and the publication. It doesn't matter that this is an opinion piece as opposed to a straight news article.
Given that they have not, it's safe to say that the editorial is accurate.
-
2
-
-
On 10/4/2023 at 2:09 PM, akirby said:
Until they are willing to stop or slow product rollouts (which they have been doing to some extent) and stop nickel and diming the suppliers it won’t improve a lot. Just keeping existing platforms and drivetrains will help a lot as problems like this are identified and fixed.The transmission in our 2014 Escape completely died last year. It happened at 130,000 miles, but my wife was still furious - she believes that there should not be an engine or transmission failure before 200,000 miles. (Meanwhile, a friend had the transmission in his wife's 2014 Escape completely fail at 75,000 miles, so perhaps we should count ourselves lucky.) At this point, I can't even talk to her about getting another Ford.
Her attitude regarding this is one I've heard from many people. They view 200,000 miles as the new benchmark.
Our 2004 Focus SE sedan was a beast - traded with 239,000 miles on the odometer, it had no transmission or engine problems, and the air conditioning still blew ice-cold air.
Even in Pennsylvania, where road salt is used regularly and people have to deal with winter, it is not uncommon to see plenty of square-body Escapes, first-generation Fusions, mid-2000 Explorers and 2003-11 Focuses still on the road. Ford can build quality vehicles when it wants to.
-
1
-
-
On 10/8/2023 at 3:49 PM, bzcat said:
Nissan sold loads of Altima and it's giving up.
Is the Nissan Altima going away? I had heard that the Maxima is scheduled to be phased out, but I missed any announcement or speculation regarding the Altima.
Word on a Honda website is that the next-generation Accord will not be a sedan, but something along the lines of the old Honda Accord Crosstour - but better executed.
-
11 minutes ago, paintguy said:
Think the fact that no additional strike against Ford is planned indicates Ford is negotiating in good faith. Let's hope a deal can be made soon. On other forums, the domestic automakers and workers are not held in high regard. Think the Ford ads released recently are trying to give a positive spin to American labor. Certainly don't want to lose more market share.
For what it's worth, since the days of Henry Ford II, Ford has had the best relationship with the UAW among the Big Three.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, akirby said:
Making unreasonable demands and refusing to meet with automakers sounds like bad faith bargaining to me.We have to define what constitutes an "unreasonable demand."
I would expect the union to initially ask for the sun, the moon and all of the stars. They'll get the moon and a few stars...but that's the way it's supposed to work.
As for the strike "dragging on for months"...is that what the union wants, or what is prepared to accept? Because that will be a key fact in determining whether its actions constitute bad faith.
Others have posted that the union continues to meet with Ford leadership, so it is not necessarily refusing to meet with Ford's negotiating team.
I agree with you that the UAW appears to have an unrealistic expectation of what it can obtain with this contract, but charges of "bad faith" are hard to prove in these circumstances.
-
2 hours ago, T-dubz said:
Why is the NLRB not investigating the union? Seems to me they are the ones not bargaining in good faith.
Using hardball tactics is not necessarily the same as refusing to bargain in good faith.
I'm not saying the union is right in choosing this path - leadership still seems to believe it's 1965, and GM, Ford, Chrysler and AMC have 91 percent of the new vehicle market - but saying that the use of hardball tactics proves bad faith would be tough for the board to swallow.
-
1 hour ago, jasonj80 said:
The individual plants could hold an election to decertify the union at that location, they would contact the NLRB with the required 30% of members at the location signature cards and they would schedule a vote.
If ONE plant did that the UAW leadership would freak out and settle the strike. It would be settled before NLRB was finished counting the election cards.
The UAW lives in a time gone by. It is why it is such a sought after job for so many and live in the echo chamber of Detroit where everyone thinks of the families that worked generations there and they still have 95% market share as that’s what they see on the road. (Though lately that is changing) You have support because you never dare say anything bad about the UAW as you’ll get screamed at or asked to leave people’s houses. It’s still the great times of the 1970’s when Detroits fall from grace started.
This strike is just another winning a battle but losing the war and shows how out of touch the UAW really is with how much the county has changed. Who cares if I can’t get an Escape or Explorer, I’ll just go get a CRV, Telluride. They are cheaper anyways and also made in the USA.
At one time, the British Motor Corporation was the fourth largest auto manufacturer in the world (behind GM, Ford and Chrysler), and the British auto industry was a force to be reckoned with...these days I find myself hoping that history does not repeat itself on this side of the Atlantic.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Oacjay98 said:
Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that but these corporations need to give us workers our fair share!
I understand that everyone is under financial stress with recent inflationary trends, but losing market share isn't going to ultimately benefit anyone who works for GM, Ford or Stellantis - union or management.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Oacjay98 said:
I had to edit my previous response. I watched the video where he mentioned all three going on strike at once. I see that as very possible but if that scenario doesn’t take place then I believe the target will be Stellantis. I base this on the Belvedere plant situation and the issues they have up here in Canada. I think UAW AND UNIFOR will target them.
Striking GM, Ford and Stellantis simultaneously sounds like a good way to hand over more market share to Honda, Hyundia, Kia and Toyota. I can't believe he seriously believes that is a good idea.
-
On 8/5/2023 at 9:24 PM, akirby said:
Because you can’t force a union in a right to work state.I thought this would be covered by any contract, which will state that line workers in all Ford facilities will be represented by the UAW..? The location of a Ford facility in a right-to-work state would have no effect on this.
-
Sales of used vehicles have always outnumbered sales of new vehicles - even during the 1950s and 1960s, when supposedly "everybody" was buying brand-new cars, if one believes the stories being peddled about the "good old days."
Much like a trip to a classic car show would lead one to think that "everybody" was once driving around in red convertibles, Corvettes, British sports cars, Cadillacs, loaded Mustangs and muscle cars with the biggest engines.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, akirby said:
I do not remember if it was Nissan or someone else but an Asian mfr that aggressively targeted subprime buyers admitted that it was a financial disaster for them.Referring buyers to private subprime lenders is one thing. Nissan is partnering with shady companies and offering factory incentives to both buyers and dealers to not only use the subprime lenders but also to push 84 month loans resulting in unhappy buyers who are upside down and more repossessions which won’t help Nissan vehicle values. Not a good long term strategy.
I remember that Mitsubishi, in the early 2000s, allowed buyers of brand-new vehicles to delay payments for a year after the purchase date, and that sent the company into a tailspin in this market.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:
Former Ford CEO, President, and VP Jacques Nasser "believed the future of buying a new vehicle was in for some big changes as well, with a shift toward build-to-order and more customizable features" back in the late 1990s, according to a Ford Authority article. Former VP Accurately Predicted Modern Ford Practices (fordauthority.com)
It's unfortunate that a quarter century later, Jim Farley is still having difficulty getting Ford and its franchised dealerships to implement that approach across the board in the U.S. market.
Ford and other manufacturers are up against state franchise laws, which have long been tilted in favor of the dealer.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, akirby said:
Like bell bottoms and disco balls.Maybe one of the surviving Charlie's Angels can promote that Free Wheelin' package.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, rperez817 said:
That's sad to hear. Looks like Jim Farley still has his work cut out for him convincing Ford corporate and Ford dealers alike to fully embrace the build to order paradigm that he spoke about many times over the past couple years. Ford CEO Jim Farley Says Build To Order Paradigm Is Company's Future (fordauthority.com)
I've been hearing variations of this prediction since I discovered this site in 2000.
-
52 minutes ago, akirby said:
He also ushered in all the ecoboost engines, platform consolidations that eventually led to lots of issues as well as the DCT trans fiasco. But he was still a good leader.There are going to be issues when a manufacturer introduces new drivetrains. The key is how fast it moves to correct them. Even Honda has had issues with some of its new drivetrains. I can forgive teething pains.
The DCT transmission fiasco was different...the company moved ahead knowing that it was a faulty transmission, and let the dealers and paying customers sort out the mess until the lawsuits were filed.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, jpd80 said:
GM fans will say it’s faster and better than Mustang but won't go buy one.
I test drove one at a Carlisle GM/Chevrolet event a few years ago. The chopped greenhouse gives the car a very claustrophobic feeling - enough to be a deal-breaker if one will be driving the car on a daily basis.
The prior two generations of F-bodies had the same problem. The performance and handling could be great, but give me a Mustang if I have to drive it every day.-
2
-
-
On 1/15/2023 at 11:47 AM, jniffen said:
The stories I read was Iacocca set the initial price of $1,965.00 wasn't budging on the price.
That's why the change for the fuel tank rear axle was not made from assembly.
Also the news show that reported the fire issue had to increase the height of the car crashing into the Pinto to cause the problem to appear.
Yes, there were accidents that happened and caused the fire, but they sensationalized it.
Through the years Ford engineers kept improving the car, so much it was used in the US postal service
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-05-14-8902010400-story.html
As a kid, I used to have the 70's Pinto, Maverick and Mustang brochures, don't know where they are now.
Most of the Pinto's competitors had the gas tank mounted behind the rear axle. That wasn't an uncommon place for the fuel tank in that era, particularly for rear-wheel-drive small cars.
Not only was the ride height of the "crash" car (an early 1970s full-size Chevrolet) altered, but the headlights of the Chevrolet were turned on (to increase the chance that there would be a spark), and the Pinto's fuel tank had been topped off. Even then, it's my understanding that it took more than one attempt to make the Pinto burst into flames (and the Chevrolet was traveling at a higher speed than that set by the federal standards for fuel-tank safety).
-
1 hour ago, Rick73 said:
Particularly after the 1973 oil crisis a few years later, when fuel economy became a greater priority. It begs the question of why Iacocca was so insistent on keeping Pinto weight under 2,000 pounds at a time when gas was relatively inexpensive? It’s possible he anticipated oil shortages and wanted Pinto to have great fuel economy, but seems more likely that US market was showing greater interest in small cars starting in the 1960’s. Prior to Vega, GM’s attempt to compete with VW Beetle, the Corvair, also ran into safety issues. Not sure if small and safe can be combined at a reasonable price.
Sales of imports were again increasing in the mid- and late-1960s. VW sales were still strong, and Toyota and Datsun were making headway in the U.S. Even though gas wasn't terribly expensive, it was thought that their fuel economy was one reason people were buying more imported economy cars.
The VW Beetle was by far the most popular small car in the 1960s, and even then it had a questionable reputation for safety.
The irony is that the Mother Jones article that got the ball rolling with alleged Pinto issues drastically overstated the number of Pinto fire-related deaths. The notorious memo that supposedly balanced the cost of improvements to the Pinto over human lives never existed - it was a memo that had been requested by the federal government from Ford (and other automakers), and was a cost-benefit analysis of proposed safety regulations. It used the standard cost-benefit analysis (which included placing a value on a human life), and had nothing to do with the Pinto.
The Pinto's overall safety record was actually better than many small cars of that era. When looking at fire-related deaths, the Pinto was slightly worse than contemporary small cars, but not the worst. (The worst was the AMC Gremlin, which was not singled out by the government or safety advocates.)
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, paintguy said:
I know the aversion to Grabber Blue. My mom's '74 Pinto was Grabber Blue. When looking for a Mustang, Grabber Blue not on my short list. The '74 Pinto was a particularly bad manifestation of the malaise era. The bumpers added significant weight, without improving safety. Emissions control gutted any engine performance and hurt driveability. Started to rust after the first winter. Eventually, junked with a bad camshaft. Was many years before my family considered another Ford. Thankfully Ford is much improved. As bad as Pinto was, Vega was just as bad, Chrysler missed the subcompact market and AMC Gremlin was just strange. Unfortunate misses that opened the door for our Japanese competitors.
My aunt had a 1977 Pinto sedan, and a friend's family had 1972 and 1977 Pinto Runabouts. They were definitely better than the Vegas owned by people we knew.
My family had a 1973 AMC Gremlin with the 258 six and automatic. It was by far the worst car my family has ever owned. The Pintos were superior in overall reliability and build quality compared to the Vega and Gremlin, based on our experience.
-
7 hours ago, jpd80 said:
Mark 3 Cortina started at 2116 lbs and was a bigger, better vehicle
In all fairness, the Pinto was sold as an inexpensive economy car in North America, while the Cortina competed in the heart of family car market in Europe, so Ford could charge more for it.
People buying Pintos expected them to have a low sticker price.
The North American equivalent of the Cortina would have been the Fairlane/Torino.
-
1 hour ago, j2sys said:
Regardless of the likelihood of not being held liable by a court, many, many HR departments these days would err on the side of caution, doing the bare minimum of confirming the start and end dates of employment, not even answering if the former employee is eligible for rehire. Endorsing a former employee doesn't really benefit your business after all...
I worked for a telecommunications company in the 1990s. That was the policy of the company's Human Resources Department. It would only confirm the person's name, last position held at the company, and dates of employment.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, akirby said:
Ive had several employers call me about a former coworker they were looking to hire and I gave them an honest assessment which in some cases wasn’t completely positive. Maybe it depends on whether they’re listed as a reference.I believe there was a case where a person sued his former employer for giving a prospective employer a negative review, and that person won.
The person must obviously prove that the negative review was the reason that he or she was not hired. If pressed, the prospective employer can simply say that there were other candidates who were more qualified, for any number of reasons.
-
3 hours ago, akirby said:
These are the things you have to fix to improve quality starting with better supplier relations. Suppliers deserve blame sometimes but Ford has to do better.
As for the engine covers, my old boss would have called them out on that. You mean to tell me we could have eliminated that on day 1 and had these savings all along? If we don’t need it now why did we need it back then? If you allow people to play games they will.
Ultimately, a quest for quality has to be part of the corporate culture.
I've been following this site for over 20 years. The problem is that Ford only seems to care about quality when the lack of it ends up costing the company money. Even this latest effort is being driven by mounting warranty costs. Which, roughly 18 years ago, was the motivating factor behind that last big push for improved quality.
I recall reading a quote by a Toyota manager. He said that the problem with the domestic auto makers was that they viewed quality control solely as a cost-saving measure. They weren't making it a core pillar of the company's operations.
-
4
-
UAW Demands 46% Pay Hike
in Ford Motor Company Discussion Forum
Posted
Someone needs to remind UAW leaders of the history of Studebaker.
In the wake of World War II, Studebaker's executive team refused to take a strike - as GM did after the war was over - to keep its labor costs in line. (Strikes were frowned upon during the war, and lucrative "cost plus" contracts with the federal government for war material meant that companies could afford the higher costs.)
As a result, not only were Studebaker workers making more per hour than their Big Three counterparts, but Studebaker employed more line workers than it needed.
The postwar seller's market masked that inefficiency, but then true competition returned in early 1953 (when production controls imposed by the federal government during the Korean War ended). The roof soon fell in at South Bend.