SoonerLS

I'd bet you can find qualified individuals for far less than the cost of a salesman's time (which is what they're effectively spending now). You don't need (or want) an IT professional to do the job, just somebody who can learn a system (which is not, in the grand scheme of things, overly-complicated) well enough to explain it to a customer--in fact, what you need is someone with people skills, not technological skills, because all you're really trying to do is overcome laziness or intimidation, not design and implement the system.

That is precisely the point--they're suggesting that the dealerships hire professionals (or at least enthusiasts) to do the delivery training, freeing the salesmen to do what they do best--sell. The simple fact is that cars are becoming more complex, and all too few buyers are willing to take the time to RTFM to figure out how it works. And that's not limited to old farts; I see the exact same thing from 20-something college students--and, mind you, this is a professional program, so every last one of them has at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited university. They don't care how the machine works, they just want it to work, but they don't want to take the time to figure out how it is supposed to work...

Perhaps you should go back and re-read Austin's explanation of why Wixom is permanently closed. Perhaps you missed the news that Ford sold that factory. Hell's bells, they only owned it for the last few years because they had to buy it (along with several others) back to bail out Visteon.

How would drowning CVs in Hobken, NJ get a lot of CVs off the streets in New York? As noted above, NYC is already replacing their taxi fleet with Nissans, so it's not like it would make a whole lot of difference, anyway--unless you're trying to hail a cab before the new Nissans fully replace the current fleet...

I've heard very few complaints about Sync; it's MFT that has been drug through the cacti. They are NOT the same thing, and even the tech reviewers who've complained bitterly about MFT have simultaneously praised Sync.

ROFLMAO.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about sales figures, not the CR numbers. I haven't seen what Fiasler did, but Ford reported a big profit.

It's about time. I always hated seeing a beautifully-done '32 Ford with one of those God-awful Chebbie mills infesting the engine bay. There are already companies making body shells (IIRC, there's even one making them in stainless steel) for '34 Fords, so I'd hate to see the guys that have been doing it get choked out by Ford, but I wouldn't mind having a no-kidding Ford body to use on a street rod...

I'll see your Bird of Prey and raise you a LEM: http://www.amazon.com/NASA-Apollo-11-Insight-Hardware/dp/1844256839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351474992&sr=8-1&keywords=haynes+apollo+11

Interesting--the standard-cab, short-box F150 has a 125.9" wheelbase and is 79.2" wide. I'd think that would be a point in favor of basing a Bronco on F150, particularly when added to the fact that the F-Series is already made here. It would essentially be using excess parts and production capacity from the F-Series and the forthcoming Expedition, which should let them do it for far less than if they did it on a T6. Of course, whether or not there is a market for a truck- (or car-) based Bronco is another question entirely...

It changed substantially only once, in 1978, when it went from the original size to the "full size" Bronco (and I wouldn't exactly call it a "behemoth"). Personally, I prefer the full-sized Bronco.

Why would you want it to resemble a Wrangler? The Bronco should be a Bronco, not a Jeep.

They could build it on a short-box F150 frame; if what we've heard is accurate and the Expedition will be built on a F-Serie frame, that could actually make a Bronco easier to justify. Either way, no thanks to that Troller. Let Tiyoda go with the cartoony trucks; I want my Bronco to look like a truck, not an agglomeration of JC Whitney catalog reject parts...

What the hell does this have to do with Ford's activities in Europe? I realize this is the silly season, but why in the hell does political crapola keep appearing up in threads in the Ford Motor Company Discussion forum?

I always go back to this: If MotorTrend tells you water's wet, feel it. I've seen Angus MacKenzie's name around, but I don't think I've ever read any of his "writing" before (and I doubt I'll read it again if that tripe is indicative of his "style"--it might as well have started with "it was a dark and stormy night"). I fail to see how considering building a sedan off of the Mustang platform has a "whiff of desperation" to it at all--and that's if we're generous enough to assume that his supposition is even on the same continent as reality, which is not a given (see the first sentence in this post). Of course, the big tell is when he says "globally Mercedes builds more than twice as many E-Classes anyway, which means it gets better economies of scale into the bargain," while completely ignoring the economies of scale that Ford realizes through its platform and powertrain sharing. (Well, I guess that is internally-consistent, because platform is bad when Ford is doing it, so it couldn't possibly be an asset, right?) :bag: What a load of hooey...

My reading of it was that Wolff's changes to the nose required the hardpoint changes; regardless, the fact that Ford allowed anyone at Lincoln to change them at that stage of the game is another strong piece of evidence that Ford does have the commitment to move Lincoln forward (IMHO).

Oh, no, I'm sure Ford execs are crying in their cereal this morning, bemoaning the fact that the Flex isn't the top-selling car in the whole entire world and working on a plan to increase market share at the expense of profits...

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the dealers bring a lot of this on themselves. I've dealt (or tried to deal) with six Ford dealerships in my area, and of them, I would only do business (again) with two of them. I am a dyed in the wool Blue Oval loyalist, and those other four were bad enough that I almost swore off dealing with Ford dealerships altogether--and that was after I'd bought cars from two of them. One of them didn't even make it through the negotiations before he pissed me off so badly that I got up and walked out--which worked out well for me and my local dealer (one of the two good ones), because within an hour I closed the deal on a better car for a much better price. Now, I'm sure you're an honest, hard-working dealer, and I have no doubt I'd get a square deal from you (or Dean), but the Ford dealer batting average around here hasn't exactly been stellar...well, unless they were playing baseball, where a .333 is pretty darn good.

I don't know if this is why, but, IMHO, the hatch looks better than the sedan. Of course, I could be biased, because my first car was a Fiesta, back when it was only available as a hatch--then again, I don't particularly like hatches...

My understanding was that Max's only substantial contribution to the MKZ was the rework of the nose (which was substantial, given what he was allowed to do); by the time he came aboard, the rest of the car was too far along for him to make much impact.

The important thing is not that he "tweaked" the grille, it was that Ford let him move hard points to do it. That says not only that they have enough sense to trust the guy they poached to do the job they hired him to do, but also that they have the commitment to follow up on what he's doing. Adding in the new Lincoln Design Studio and the move to re-brand Lincoln to be on the same corporate level as Ford (at least in name), plus the Lincoln-exclusive features in the current (as in the only one being produced now, not the one that has been out of production for months) MKZ--and let's not forget their commitment to bring out seven new models over the next few years--and you already have a level of commitment that Ford has not shown to Lincoln in all their previous hand-waving and lip service attempts to "renew" Lincoln. It is patently obvious that Ford has made the commitment to move Lincoln forward; that's no longer the question. The real question now is whether or not they can execute well enough to succeed. If the "current" MKZ is as good as it is expected to be, it is definitely a good first step on the road to success.

Philosophies aside, the problem is that they're throwing dollars (that we don't have) into chasing pennies. With the tens of millions of cars we have on the road, the gasoline saved by replacing (or, more likely, augmenting) a few thousand of them with PHEVs or BEVs won't amount to spitting in the ocean.

RIM ICE'd out as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement chooses iPhone to replace their Blackberries... http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/102312-us-government-agency-drops-blackberry-263597.html

Aww, you're no fun anymore.

I'm not sure why a platform change would be a problem for LEAs, as long as Ford doesn't make wholesale changes the mechanical parts or the equipment mounting points.