BrewfanGRB

I thought the exact same thing! Ultimately, to me, since it was only a bit away from a roof strength score to get a Top Pick, it's still bound to be a safe car, even in a roll over. But, regardless, a little bit of extra strength equals the ability to get the award and that's worth it. I only use the IIHS tests to evaluate the relative safety of a vehicle---they are challenging and getting a Top Pick means the car is well-rounded against all risks. As an aside...yet another reason NOT to get rid of Volvo. Please, Alan, think carefully about this!

Links work fine for me. (MacOS, Safari). I like it!! I like the XC60. Remind me again why Ford is selling Volvo? Is it unprofitable? They are converting debt to equity, issuing stock and bond offerings, etc. Is dumping an otherwise good division worth $2B and the inherent risk of the loss of IP?

Sounds like a great way to deploy limited capital to take advantage of a growing and important market. No? Hmmm. People wonder why this company can't possibly survive as it's currently constituted? On a more serious note, half the stuff Chrysler and Dodge are doing simply makes no sense. Chrysler does have limited capital and they have a limited timeframe in which to get not just new product out...but perception-changing product: product that tells the public "Look at what we have--you helped us out, come see what we've done". And I don't see it. OTOH, I am interested in at least being reasonable--I don't like to think I'm just a Ford fanboy--and I think GM is doing SOMETHING. I'm not exactly in the market for it, but the LaCrosse does look nice, with interesting interiors and a catching exterior design. They've kept their eye on the ball with the trucks and pent-up demand or not, the Camaro has outsold the 'Stang since the Camaro rolled out. (Whether that's people waiting for new engines in Mustangs or what, I don't know--but how much pent up demand can there be for a Camaro?)

I am not arguing the "general public" should set the wage. But I think it's clear that $28/hr, making 56-58k/yr for a job that requires some mechanical skills and physical strength, but generally, no specialized or vocational education is a pretty damn good deal if you can get it. But if you do get it, you are 1 of (now) 30 or 40k. Mulally is 1 of 1. It's not unreasonable that he's paid millions. Well then what is it exactly? "We've conceded many times before, you made a $1B profit now, so I am done conceding"? Never mind the billions of debt Ford still has and took on to save the company, which saves your job. Yes and the Ford CEO NOW doesn't make anywhere near what the Ford CEO made THEN either. Got it. Everybody gets paid the same amount! Yay! No incentive for promotion, no incentive to bring a talented executive in. Pioneer says CEO's should be paid...what? 100k/yr? Or is that still too much? And how exactly, does him getting paid 1.9M less than he is today going to help Ford in any meaningful way? I suppose your argument would then be "oh, well, it's the principle of the matter--shared sacrifice" or some such nonsense. In case you haven't figured it out, "the principle of the matter" or a savings of 1.9M will not save Ford. The CEO of my company makes far more than Mulally and it makes me grumble, but I get over it, because 1) his pay doesn't really affect my pay and 2) he does a job I cannot do anyway.

Well, perhaps the goal wasn't to get a competitive EDGE...now or later. It was for parity. Again, we can go around and around on this--for your argument to be right, it means you know something Ford doesn't---that they asked for a contract modification for no reason. Apparently, the Executive Leadership Team at Ford doesn't know this--but you do. Interesting. You should have let them know all their effort in developing the modification was wasted. Wow, this conversation is very weird. Your argument against the modification was that it took away the right to strike in certain situations and being upset about this because the union hasn't struck Ford since the mid-70's. Get real: The desire to keep the right to strike IS a threat to strike. If you don't want to strike or even threaten to, you don't need the right in the first place. What part of my quote that referenced the overtime didn't you understand? It's widely known that many senior assembly workers made/could have made nearly 80k in the rich times w/ lots of OT. $28/hr is 58k/yr. It doesn't take much OT at $42 (or even $56/hr) to get you to OT. And as Richard has pointed out, I was wrong on the high side for Alan...so I guess I'm not the only one going off half-cocked without all the facts. I'm still stunned that people think a CEO making 2M (or 8M or 18M or WHATEVER) is the problem...not 30,000 people making $60k each. The way I see it is the UAW IS tired of conceding. Fine. Just put another plant in Mexico (or hell, Canada, for that matter), cut another 5000 jobs in the US and poof!, save yourself $300M/yr (simplified math).

I love this for a number of reasons but 2 (ok, 3) stick out in my mind: 1) It tells the public what Ford's been saying all along and what many in the public think already: See? We had a plan, it was painful for our workers, but we are making it work on our own---and we're MAKING MONEY w/o government help. 2) It sets the stage for investor confidence---Ford can now do (if they choose) another debt for equity swaps, using the power of that confidence (investors are more and more likely to believe Ford's stock will appreciate and are more willing to swap debt for equity). That also means swaps are generally less dilutive if the stock continues to appreciate (sure, I own less of Ford if they issue more shares, but less debt should mean an increase in share price, I get that "loss" back that much quicker--if I am existing shareholder). 3) It provides increasingly greater flexibility for Ford---to make the investments in plants, to stay the course of continuous improvement/redesign in it's vehicles, etc. I may be overstating one quarter of profit---but I really don't think I am when comparing Ford to the industry.

I know, I know. You've been saying all along in this thread that the new labor deal would have saved Ford nothing. That implies Ford, GM and Chrysler are all on-par vis a vis labor costs. So then why would Ford have asked for concessions? You're honestly expecting me to believe that Ford doesn't know something YOU DO? Please. To me, it would royally suck to be a new autoworker on a Tier 2 wage and have that wage frozen for 5 years. But those folks have a choice: Take the job or don't---nobody was busting down an existing worker to $14/hr. I don't believe for a second that Ford is on par with GM and wanted concessions that are bound to rile up the base just for shits and giggles. Face it: Mulally knows more than you or I ever will. Don't like it? Do what every other dissatisfied worker does: QUIT. Oh wait, no, I forgot, you're protected because kept the beloved strike hammer hanging over Ford's head. Go ahead, strike or even threaten to. See how buyers come flooding into showrooms. Sounds like a good way to destroy a nascent recovery. You ever wonder why the UAW and workers collectively are generally disrespected? Because of the Jobs Bank, the Monday after Easter....I mean think about it: In good times, you got tons and tons of time off and because demand was still there, you could turn around and work tons of OT. I don't know about you, but an auto assembly worker making $80k/yr leaves me scratching my head a lot more than a CEO of a massive industrial organization making $8M/yr.

Of course. That's all the UAW wants--gimme, gimme, gimme. Until they were embarrassed to the point of silliness over the Job Bank, it was "gimme money for not working", it was "gimme low cost health care", "gimme ridiculous hourly wages and tons of overtime". Now most of those things have gone away and Ford is STILL at a competitive disadvantage. The "gimme, gimme, gimme" has cost 1/2 of the UAW their jobs. So now they are sitting at home, doing nothing, but fortunately not getting paid anything either. I understand that at some point, the union has to say "enough is enough"---that's the point of collective bargaining. But a profit built on basically accounting tactics in the 2nd quarter and a small profit in the 3rd quarter built on the glimmer of the beginning of a turnaround is not the end of Ford's problems. Keep it up, UAW--your goal is obviously to eliminate the remaining 1/2 of the UAW membership. 5-8 years from now, every Ford vehicle will be built in Mexico, Alabama or Mississippi. Note: This is NOT a bash on the individual UAW worker---every indication is the build quality of the Taurus is top notch. The UAW membership is largely, but not entirely, a skilled and prideful workforce, I think. But, they will be their own undoing if they aren't careful.

Come on, are you seriously saying that bag "boys" should be paid a wage sufficient to sent their kids to college? Please don't say you're not--because this entire thread has turned into you arguing that unions allowed non-skilled workers to buy a house and send their kids to college. If you argue now that only auto workers (or similar "labor intensive" workers) deserve a higher wage because it's labor intensive or perhaps, even semi-skilled, then you've argued against your entire premise of the need for unions. The market and economy itself create the division of labor--even amongst unskilled labor, there are roles that legitimately deserve a higher wage--a higher wage the market will pay even without union intervention. A bag boy requires truly no skill at all, beyond being able to learn the bread and eggs go on top---the soup cans go on the bottom. A "non-tradesman" assembly worker still needs to possess the physical ability to move components and recognize faults (a big point of CAP w/ the Taurus is any worker being able to stop the line when they spot a fault--if you were completely unskilled just inserting a bolt, you'd never spot a fault at all). The point is: Unions began because employers abused the workers through working conditions (unsafe mines, etc), lack of breaks/lunches, etc not because "hey, that $28/hr for bolting in an IP isn't enough---so if you want to keep making the Taurus, you'll pay me 30/hr". It's not a job I would want, I am not sure I could even do it...but in my CURRENT job, if I ever decided my employer did not properly recognize my client service skills, I could hunt around for a similar job for more money (and then I would find "oops, my employer is paying about market wages for my role") and leave. Edit to add on: The point I am making is that auto workers (nor anyone else) are not held hostage to a job that could kill them, hurt them or forcibly and unfairly paying them nothing. No matter how unskilled you are (aside from agriculture and other exceptions), you cannot make less than federal minimum wage. If you don't have the skills that would demand a wage greater than that, then you don't DESERVE a wage higher than that. Want better wages? Get better skills. No one is entitled to owning a house or sending their kids to college (LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of kids go to college despite having parents without skills).

Why is this unreasonable? I do have to go back and look at your profile, because I don't know where you live, but I will say this: For someone purchasing in a vehicle in NE Wisconsin, I would think leather without heated seats would be a deal breaker. Cooled seats would be nice but not absolutely required like heated seats (believe it or not, it can be atrociously uncomfortable in July, but not as bad as cold seats in January). OTOH, in Phoenix, it would seem heated seats would VERY occasionally needed, but frankly, my guess is that cooled seats in July would be used more often in Green Bay than heated seats in Phoenix in January. To me, it seems more easier all around to just give heated/cooled seats as the option all around. That said, ITA agree that to include heated seats automatically on the top trim line on the Fusion (as it should), but in a way, I can see what you're saying. The Taurus is the flagship--why not just put heated and cooled seats as standard on the top trim line? (I see the Limited as the top trim line---I see the SHO as a separate issue altogether).

Well, you have to understand: Apparently, when Steve says Ford should please everyone, he actually means Ford should please HIM, regardless of how bizarre or nitpicking his preference may be. So, as long as whatever the feature is pleases Steve, from his perspective, they've pleased everyone. :rolleyes:

Search is down right now (which is weird, but hey, whatever). But, you're right, it was a VERY long time ago. Unless my memory is completely shot, this Edmunds test was originally August-ish (just before SHO started shipping).

Absolutely gorgeous car! From the color to the sweet wheels. I soooo very torn right now. I can't possibly afford a properly equipped SHO, but I am not sure if I can wait 5 years until the Fusion is paid off and gives me a decent downpayment. Chances of picking up a used '10 SHO in 3 years?? Somewhere between 0 and none.

Not surprising. It seemed this was going to be a roadblock from Day One. But, it's probably exacerbated by the Yu IP theft story. It SEEMS that Ford might be more comfortable (and might be able to get a better agreement with) the Crown group, noting the Ford connections. I thought it was interesting how the article noted how Volvo is now pretty connected in the vehicle development cycle. I really think that as time goes on, the costs of "supporting" Volvo will be better spread out across the product lines on the whole. But, 2.5B in the bank or 2.5B less debt is hard to ignore and I wonder how you grow Volvo's market share and Lincoln/Mercury's, too? As noted in the article, Volvo is Ford's only near-premium brand internationally. I just don't see this as an easy decision either way--Neither the "Eh, dump the brand for a couple bil and move on", nor the "Keep it, Volvo's technology is great and it gives us sales internationally" are slam dunks.

Oh, come off it already. The article does nothing like saying "it's ONLY $1MM in salary". It's saying that it will be difficult to find someone who is qualified enough to be the CFO of an organization the size of GM and be willing to accept a government imposed limitation on his salary. The point, since the BEGINNING OF CAPITALISM, is that executives make more than hourly workers. What exactly do you think top-level executives of a Fortune 500 should make? 100k? I don't know, that's about 125% MORE than I make, that's obviously waaay too much. Then again, I don't even have a bachelor's degree, much less an MBA. I wouldn't know the first thing about being CFO (or ANY executive) at a sprawling, struggling, but still massive industrial corporation. And I am sure the same is true for you. I am a worker bee like most anyone else, but I don't begrudge what the execs of my company make. Even if my CEO made 1MM instead of 8MM, it's a drop in the bucket for a company with $8 billion in annual revenue. It's not like "Well, if my CEO made $1MM instead of $8MM, I could be paid 80k instead of 40k." Bullshit. That $7MM in "savings" would go to the shareholders. Or down the rat hole on new copiers. Or whatever. People take what other people make far too seriously. If I really don't like what my CEO makes, I can quit and go work somewhere else. Or start my own company, so I can make $8MM while my workers make $40k. (Yeah right). So don't be dense--it isn't as if whatever you don't pay Person X, somehow that means everyone else gets a proportional share of the savings. Although a quasi-interesting game show, real life doesn't work like 1 vs 100. These rules just make it harder to get a person GM could really use as CFO and on the whole, misguided. Congress has been been using the tax code to legislate executive pay for a long time. Unfortunately, what Congress doesn't realize is that executives, compensation boards (and Jeff in the mailroom) are all smarter and more creative than it is. Pass a "say on pay" law and leave it alone at that.

I know this "sneak peek" has been out before, but I sure hope the whole thing comes together, because it sure looks like it's gonna be good. Damn you, Ford! You are giving too many options to desire as the ultimate replacement for my Fusion (which is only 7 months old). :yup: Now if only my employer could be as aggressive in improving my paycheck as Ford is with improving its products.

Wow. That's a pretty great way to put it.

Yeah, I don't know--maybe Dean's neck of woods has a tougher go of it on credit. But, when I bought my Fusion, I got the loan at my "hometown" bank (small, independent) for 6.75 and I have, um...blemishes on my credit report. I see no way I would have qualified for 0% w/ FMCC to begin with.

Fair enough. I think that's a given. I have no quarrel w/ the concept of however many uninsured there are out there is too many uninsured. I have no quarrel that thoe uninsured people cause the rates of those who are insured to be higher than they would be otherwise (just like health insurance!!). I just don't think I gain anything by overthinking the issue. As long I think what I am paying right now is reasonable, I gain nothing by imagining how much lower my rates would be if everyone was insured. My guess is not nearly as much as we would like to think.

I have the WeatherTechs for the front only on my Fusion. (I don't have kids and I think someone has been in the backseat of my car twice in 7 months). Right now, the WeatherTechs are sitting in my trunk because frankly, I don't really like the looks. I prefer the overall "look" of a carpeted mat--which is not an indictment of WeatherTech, just the "style" of mat that is needed for a mat to be a "winter" mat. But, in a couple months (I hope it's not 1 month!), I will swap them out because the WeatherTechs are phenonmenal at not only keeping the inside of the car clean, but also my clothes during the work week. Not only is there a hole already there for the hook, but as mentioned, if installed CORRECTLY (i.e., you have to be at least smart enough to drive a motor vehicle--if you cannot install a floor mat correctly, then you are too stupid to even be driving the car) then the mat cannot go anywhere at all. So, in sum, poor design of the accelerator or a wussy "hook" or not, to me, 95% of these floormat problems are driver stupidity. (Not driver error--driver STUPIDITY).

Oh. I didn't know that, thanks. The hook must not be installed the same way ours is, then, because mine sure feels like it's bolted into the floor.

Ok, I STILL do NOT understand the problem here. The mat in the Lexus in the Jalopnik story clearly shows the "hook" and the grommet in the mat. Is this "semi-permanent" solution supposed to be a failsafe against an owner who didn't properly install the mat in the first place? What is to stop the owner from snipping the ties to clean the mats, etc and (just like they are too stupid to reattach the mat originally) are too stupid to "re-tie" the mat? To the point: Even if my mat was not properly istalled, the only way it could "pin" the accelerator is by going and over the top of it. It doesn't (and can't) "catch" the accelerator through interference (like the commonly circulated image has shown). I would never purposely defend Toyota, but I do feel nearly all of this really is driver error. Either by 1) not attaching the mat correctly, 2) putting an aftermarket, all-weather mat on top of the carpeted mat or 3) using a mat from a different model altogether. I know that with my WeatherTechs, those are a serious bitch to get hooked, but I don't quit until I get it done right---those are rigid and could easily pin the accelerator (if the driver is a Toyota owner, I mean a complete moron, I mean...uhhh).

Liability insurance does not exist because of the expectation of the LAWSUIT, but rather when you bear the majority of the negligence in an accident, YOU are legally liable for the damage and injuries caused. Are seriously, really saying that if I blew a red light at 60 mph, that I am not legally liable? If I am legally liable, insurance exists soley to indemnify me for that liability. The lawsuit is simply a means for the aggrieved party to resolve their claim, if necessary. The vast majority of all liability claims are handled without a lawsuit (no matter what the idiotic, blatherheads on TV tell you about the "big, bad insurance company). Please don't be so hyperbolic to say that auto insurance exists only because Americans are litigious. (They may be, but regardless, if I am at-fault in an accident, I am legally liable and I much rather have my insurance company pay 100k than have to pay it myself). And to the point, if YOU blow a red light at 60 mph, hit me and I am legitimately injured, I am entitled to payment for my medical costs (why should my health insurance carrier have to pay those costs?) and compensation for pain and suffering. If you think you'd refuse compensation for pain and suffering, you're fooling yourself. Finally, until recently, WI only had a financial responsibility law, which means if you were in an accident and at-fault, if you could not prove financial responsibility (either through insurance OR personal assets), your driver's license was suspended. Starting 1/1/10, insurance is mandatory. So starting 1/1/10, my life gets unnecessarily harder--I've always carried insurance and I could not care one bit for any uninsured idiot. But now, I have to deal with another bureaucratic hassle.

Still not sold on the need for a Volvo divestment. But I am confused by this: "A Saab spokeswoman declined to comment. 1) why would Saab be asked for comment? And if they were, for some inexplicable reason, why would they comment? 2) Assuming the article actually meant "A Volvo spokeswoman...", then this editor needs to find a new job. Seriously, how the F can online resources think they will be considered serious news outlets, etc. when no one can catch this? (Either way---if you did ask Saab, why? and if it was Volvo, then say that). Jesus.

DVR, dude. DVR. Or Hulu (eventually...not sure what the delay is from the "live" showing). I haven't watched it yet, myself--it's waiting on the DVR---I was just busy watching Brett Favre hammering another nail into the employment coffins w/the Packers of Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson. Idiots. (Psst...CUT Allen Barbre...you can find a fat guy at Stadium View better than him).