BrewfanGRB

It's not...but accepting this doesn't make for as fun a hyperbolic "FORD SUCKS AS MUCH AS GM BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE CLAIMNG! RABBLE, RABBLE!" argument.

*Sigh* Here we go...

I sincerely mean this as respectfully as possible: Pricing is FAR more complex than this (and I know you know this but the point is, it's not about "allowing them to charge higher premiums"--higher premiums are driven by higher loss costs). Put another way: Ford makes far higher margins on higher-priced products than lower-priced products (and yes, that's just making it simple). But insurance companies do not derive higher margins on higher premiums. It simply does not work that way. Also, premiums are always lagging indicators of costs.

There is absolutely nothing unique about this to insurance companies. Every company, including Ford, does it. I deal with it by being an adult. I control my money and I choose how, where, why and when to spend it. If others are influenced by advertising or other marketing, then that is their problem, not something for which to excoriate the company. Now I need to hide, lest my bleeding heart liberal card gets taken away.

I'd explain it, but I suspect Nick will conclude it's another part of the evil insurance company conspiracy.

I'm to apply the brakes of the vehicle being driven by the inattentive driver that rearends me? I'm ok with some science fiction, but that's a little ridiculous. I know bashing insurance companies as the second-most evil thing in America aside from liberals is fun and all, but perhaps accepting that one motivation can have more than 1 consequence would be helpful.

Lots and lots and lots. It might not be safety, per se, but in absolute terms, most injuries are soft tissue from low-velocity impacts. Getting a banged up shoulder or a sore neck might not be a compound tib/fib fracture, but I know I'd rather just not have it in the first place. If one of the consequences of ME avoiding the inconvenience of even a minor collision repair or avoiding the sore neck is an improved loss ratio for my insurance carrier, I guess I'll have to suffer that dreadful outcome.

You clearly don't understand what the defect caused on the GM ignition issue. But that hasn't stopped you from creating a false analogy with this Ford recall issue. This is why a lack of knowledge is a terribly dangerous thing.

Thing that struck me was this recall alone will cost $200 million. Just tearing their earnings apart.

How did he react?

The hammer of the presumed Justice Department criminal penalties (ala Toyota) looms large. Given the SUA issues turned out to largely be moronic drivers (and not "robot car controlled by evil computer kills everyone") and this particular issue *appears* to be rather egregious actual behavior by GM, I wouldn't be surprised by a penalty that exceeds what Toyota was given.

BA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *Breathes* HAHAHAHAHA. Wait. You were joking, right?

None of this really makes any sense. Fiat really has no business being here at all, but it is "Fiat Chrysler" so I guess there has to a Fiat or 2 or 3 here. But essentially, it's Chrysler, Jeep and trucks. How hard would it have been to just dump Dodge, keep "Ram" since you've already spent God knows how much creating it, let Jeep continue to do Jeep things and make Chrysler your mainstream brand? (I realize that's effective what they ARE doing, but this all seems really messed up).

Woah those are some kick-ass #'s. I'm really getting stoked about this thing.

LOL. You're a real piece of work.

No, you have to look at how the competitors performed last April compared to how Ford performed last April. And for the 2959838948934th time, what is this obsession with sales in absolute terms? WHO CARES what Ford did this April compared to last April relative to the competitors? I know others have said they don't want to hear it, but it's profit, profit, profit. Some people don't get it and I guess that's ok, but...

Sigh.

You're being decidedly pedantic here. I think you pretty clearly know the point being made. And I can tell you, because it's my career, in the situation we all know what we're talking about here, no matter WHY the person in front of you slams on the brakes, the following vehicle by definition could not have allowed a safe following distance if they collide with the stopping vehicle. The "merge into your lane and slams on their brakes" is not the same. In a contributory negligence state, you (assuming "you" is the "following" car) could have some negligence attributed for failing to maintain a safe lookout, failing to take evasive action, but not for following too closely. So let's refocus, hmm? No matter WHAT happened with the Impala, assuming the Impala and the following vehicle didn't change lanes or make any other negligent moves, the driver of the following vehicle is at fault for failing to maintain a safe distance. Period. It's true whether there was a technical/electronic or human error with the Impala. Re: the Impala, I think the Toyota SUA incidents show the NHTSA will open the investigation to determine whether it's vehicle or human error. And I'd think that's particularly true with a newer/developing/evolving technology.

If you don't have a half-assed insurance company or you bought the CDW, you don't need to explain anything. File the claim and move on.

This is 1 complaint. In a rental. To my understanding, only the LTZ trim has the automated braking system (collision avoidance alert is available but the part when the car fully brakes on its own is only available in the LTZ, and I doubt the rental was an LTZ). My suspicion here is the collision alert went off, freaked out a driver who didn't know a single thing about the car and reacted with "OMG, WE'RE GONNA DIE!" and slammed on the brakes.

Huh? Sorry, we're done here. I stopped reading at "themselfs".

No, the better question is WHY would you? I'm also interested in someone with such extensive knowledge of Ford's operations who knows that a RWD luxury, sport crossover would be "cheap to develop".

Oh, good, you'll LOOK at one. What does that do for anyone? You missed the entire point. Which is fine, because nothing was going to convince you BMW's sales success isn't related to it being RWD anyway.

You're right, of course. After all, people who can say anything they want without consequence are the most serious and what do the people whose careers depend on knowing something know anyway?

Again with this. It's like a broken record for people. You don't have the data to conclude that people are buying these vehicles because they're RWD! Are there those who do buy them because they're RWD? Of course. Does a BMW handle the way it does merely it's RWD? No. Would the vast majority of buyers still buy it if it was FWD/AWD? Of course. And a large chunk of those buyers probably don't even know it's RWD! So why are they buying them? BECAUSE IT'S A BMW! You can't engineer or price that advantage away. Cadillac has tried...at a cost of BILLIONS. Is it a moderately successful brand? Sure, I suppose. Has it come close to supplanting BMW? Hell no...and it certainly hasn't made the progress you'd expect after spending $8 BILLION. You realize Lincoln is even further behind than Cadillac was when it started that investment. The issue here is a misplaced expectation of what Lincoln should be/what it should do. It doesn't NEED to "beat" BMW, M-B, Audi, anyone. It simply needs grow on Ford's intended pace and be profitable. Like Kevin O'Leary says "I only care about the MONEY". THE CORPORATION'S ONLY REASON TO EXIST IS TO MAKE A PROFIT. It does not need to cater to the whims of people who will never buy their product (but say "if you only you'd build X, THEN I'd buy") or to try to beat entrenched competitors with dominant market share.