Bob Rosadini

Thx, but you missed my point. In my book they are doing little to improve their situation. Half assed attempts at everything they do. The web should be a marketing tool. Sterling today came out with a new site specifically geared toward helping municipal buyers put together a bid package. Not only that, they announce their new class 3-5 cabover that will compete against the LCF and right off the bat do a comparison pointing out why the Sterling is supeior to the Ford/H and the Isuzu. go to the Ford web site. for an image of the 750, they show a 2003! How can you have a website and not keep it current. Again, I'm a stockholder and a Ford guy. My prejudices aside, I look at anything GM, Sterling or IH does and they are convincing that they want to be in the business. Ford doesn't come close and their inattention to class 6/7 is going to rub off on class 3-5 if they are not careful. Perception, perception. Right now they show a second rate, don't give a shit attitude. The other guys? All coming on strong. You mention the "build a truck" option. You have to have an interest in the product before you deccide you are going to price one out- with prices of course that don't measn a thing in terms of competitive numbers Go to the GMC web site, check the specs, then check what "specs" you can find on commtruck.ford.com. You tell me who looks like they know trucks and want to sell trucks. Not even close. :angry:

Well Bill, I just took a look at the GMC medium truck web site and you should do the same. I would say it is time you got rid of the hairdressers you are wasting my shareholder money on who pose as truck marketers. Recognizing that they have a piss poor list of options to work with, none the less these guys have no imagination. I'm a prejudiced Ford guy. But just looking at the respective web sites- I say who LOOKS like they want to sell trucks? NOT YOU BILL. Click on your commercial truck web site, and SURPRISE, There is a reference to a 2007 750! Amazing given the fact that you can't even bring up an 06 order guide on your fleet Ford web site (Yes I have a Ford fleet account number). But when you click on it, you get a picture of a 2003 (Cautillan 750) and some fluff verbiage- no specs- just fluff. This has been going on long enough- get in the business or get out. You guys do nothing to inspire any customer confidence that would lead any business man to make a committment to your product line. Its not rocket science. Its about having a passion for being in a business that you guys did very well in before the Trotman/Nasser era. Your new LCF?? I have not seen one stand alone add for it in any of the various distribution/trucking/equipment mags I get on a monthly basis. Then again, given the fact you can only talk about a "Powerstroke" powertrain, I can understand why you really don't want to "crow" about it. By the way, who was the guy in charge of the 6.0 Powerstroke program? I hope the hell he (or probably "she") gets his /her ass kicked out in your ongoing headcount reduction. Yeh, I know you outsell GM by a wisker, but Freightliner continues to kick your butt and I get the feeling you hang for the sake of saying you are a "full range commercial truck" builder. I may be wrong, but I say there is a carryover effect and that strong commercial sales have a "halo" effect on pick up sales. Nissan is forming a commercial sales unit, Toyota/Hino is coming on like gangbusters, and their new Tundra is throwing down the gauntlet. Time to get back in, or get the hell out.

How about this. I received a new "2006 Competitive Comparison Guide" from Ford Fleet sales . This is a very nice spiral bound glossy book. The Crown Vic?? It lists the Police interceptor- thats it- no "civilians" Another interesting note- Trucks? Lists 450. No 550, 650 or750. What gives..Does this mean all of these products go away? Or is it just another sloppy ill conceived Ford marketing move? :angry:

Any of you KTP boys see anything that might suggest a cab structure better suited to a class 6,7 or 8 truck? Keep in mind the no compete expires soon. So if they are going to get back in, I would assume they would do it gradually. Any commonality of cabs as long as they were engineered properly would be a big cost saver. If the current 650/750 has any negative press, some guys bitch about the low seating position. what it needs is more greenhouse that would lead to elevated seating and improved visibility. In any case, I'm with you guys who don't like the big door/small glass look. It's a truck! It should be functional. And as for the bed height, the 150 sure as hell sets a poor example. For those fleets that have a significant number, I bet at some point in time the workers comp claims associated with back strains will start to tell a story.

McMurry- Well said. I remember when the LS came out and all the positive press it received. The only problem is, Cadillac (and DCX) took that ball and ran with it while the dummies at Ford sat around wringing their hands. I'm about to get a new car. My CV has given me almost 200,000 miles of good service, but do I want to go another 200,000 in an old platform? 500/Montego? Nice package- if you like east/west engines and FWD or AWD. And worse yet the leg room sucks- yeah I know it has great rear seat legroom- unfortunately, when I do a 300 mile day I'm not in the back seat! A sad turn of events when the company that should have been the RWD leader moves to third place.

How about "Zil" or whatever those Russian limos were. What thing that is correct- talk about cost effectiveness in terms of platform sharing- a little sheet metal banging and we have ANOTHER RWD platform to chose from- and if the chrome is significantly grotesque, the rappers andf NBA stars who want something beyond a 300C will have another option. :rolleyes