More good news for Ford

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

Every major automaker except Ford Motor Co. sold more vehicles in the United States last month than in the previous May, as American consumers stepped into the peak summer sales season apparently thinking about high gas prices and choosing to buy small cars, car-based utility vehicles and more Toyotas than ever.

 

Market leader General Motors Corp. said its sales rose an impressive 9.6% in May, to 371,056 cars and light trucks, compared with a year ago, driven by sales of several fuel-efficient new passenger cars, its new, large, Lansing-made crossovers and new full-size pickups that have the best fuel economy in the class.

 

But rival Toyota's sales rose a whopping 14.1% in May to 269,023 -- the best U.S. month ever for the Japanese giant, driven by fuel-efficient cars and the new Tundra full-size pickup. Toyota also outsold Ford for the second month in a row, though Ford leads for the year.

 

Ford's sales fell 6.9%, despite strong sales of new crossovers such as the Ford Edge. The utility vehicle based on the Fusion sedan is doing so well that Ford raised its sales target by 20% to 120,000.

 

Chrysler Group sales rose 4.3%, thanks to its new four-door Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. Honda Motor Co. sales rose a steady 2.5%, despite a double-digit drop in sales of its Accord sedan. And Nissan Motor Co. logged a 7.4% increase for the month, due to increased sales of its small and midsize cars.

 

Toyota posts best month

 

Though GM and Toyota both boosted sales by nearly the same amount, about 33,000 each, and GM sold more vehicles to retail customers -- 279,731 -- than Toyota sold overall, analysts say the big story in May was Toyota's double-digit growth.

 

"GM was a surprise. Everybody was a surprise. But Toyota had their best month ever," said Alex Rosen, an industry analyst at Edmunds.com. "They are an unstoppable juggernaut."

 

Sales of the Camry, the best-selling car in the United States, increased 16%, to 50,126. The Prius, the best-selling hybrid ever, nearly tripled to 24,099. The new Tundra more than doubled the sales figures of its predecessor with May sales of 17,727, Toyota reported.

 

"As fuel prices and consumer confidence rose, the industry saw a move to passenger cars, with retail business posting sharp gains over a very challenging April," said Jim Lentz, executive vice president of Toyota's U.S. sales arm. "Despite the industry's shift toward passenger cars, Toyota's all-new Tundra hit an all-time high of 17,727 in May. As for hybrids, the market's appetite continues unabated, with Prius also establishing an all-time record."

 

Rosen said Toyota's ability to benefit from an increase in gas prices is phenomenal.

 

"Even though their vehicles don't necessarily get better mileage than their competitors, they get credit for great gas mileage," Rosen said. "The Tundra gets worse gas mileage than GM's large trucks. ... It doesn't matter. Consumers associate Toyota with fuel economy."

 

But GM said its May results were extremely positive as well.

 

GM chief market analyst Paul Ballew said the company was particularly pleased with the sales of its new full-size pickups. Sales of the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra, which launched late last year, rose 14%, compared with the previous generation's sales last May.

 

This May's sales also reflected the continuing strength of GM's new products, Ballew said, with increased sales of the Chevrolet Impala -- which rose 50% to outsell the Honda Accord -- as well as the Saturn Aura and its new GMC Acadia, Saturn Outlook and Buick Enclave crossovers exceeding expectations.

 

"Sales have been so strong. It's been pretty hard to build up inventory," Ballew said. "That's a reflection that sales have outperformed expectations."

 

GM reports that the new Enclave sells an average of four days after it arrives on a dealer's lot. GM has orders for 1,000 more than it's built.

 

Ford's new crossovers also sell well.

 

Executive Vice President Mark Fields said the Edge crossover and its luxury counterpart, the Lincoln MKX, are filling a consumer need. "The new crossovers are the right products at the right time," he said.

 

"We now expect Ford Edge sales to reach 120,000 this year, 20% higher than our original forecast."

 

Despite Ford's drop in May sales, Ford chief sales analyst George Pipas said there are signs of improvement to come and a step up in the pace of an industry that was sluggish in the first four months of the year.

 

Ford, known for its franchise F-series pickups and its SUVs, passed over "a milestone of sorts," selling more car-based vehicles than trucks. In all, cars accounted for 52% of retail sales in showrooms last month.

 

"Just three years ago, in 2004, cars and car-based utilities, the crossovers, accounted for just 30%," he said.

 

Pipas said trucks have accounted for more than half of Ford's volume for so long that he wasn't sure how long ago cars outperformed trucks at Ford.

 

"Probably it was in the 1980s," he said. "It hasn't happened in two decades."

 

With gas prices rising above $3.50 again this spring, analysts say those automakers that can take advantage of the increased consumer emphasis on fuel-efficient vehicles might woo new customers in the peak selling season of May through August.

 

"I think May is encouraging," Pipas said, "an encouraging start to the four-month period."

 

 

article

 

 

Looks like the "Way Foward Plan" is the "Way to the Bottom Plan"

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

This article is even BETTER!!!

 

How Long Can Ford Lose $5,000 a Car?

 

Harbour Consulting's auto productivity report is out, and while most makers are showing improvement, the numbers look bad for Ford

 

First, the good news: Detroit's Big Three carmakers continue to narrow the gap with the Japanese when it comes to how long their factories need to build a car. The bad news is that gains in productivity don't begin to move the three companies into the black as their overseas rivals continue to reap healthy profits.

 

So says the annual Harbour Report on productivity, which measures factory productivity in labor hours per vehicle, released by Harbour Consulting in Troy, Mich. Toyota Motor's U.S. factories are the most productive, taking a total of 29.9 hours of labor to build a vehicle, including making engines and transmissions. Nissan (NSANY) was just behind Toyota with 30 hours per car, and Honda Motor (HMC) wasn't far behind that with 31.6 hours.

 

Productive but Not Profitable

General Motors' (GM) plants take 32.4 hours to build a car, making its factories almost as productive as Honda's, according to the study. Chrysler was close, too, taking just under 33 hours to build a car. Ford Motor (F), however, is the laggard, requiring more than 35 hours per car. "Toyota is still on top," says Harbour Consulting President Ron Harbour, but he added that "it is now a very slim and marginal lead."

 

But Toyota also saw its productivity drop 1.8% because of the launch of the new Tundra pickup. Nissan dropped even further, down 5.3%, but for the most part productivity improved across the board for the rest of automakers. Chrysler was up 2.4%, GM by 2.5%, and Honda by 2.7%. Even Ford saw productivity improve by 1.9%.

 

Given the fact that domestically owned car plants are nearly as productive as Japanese plants, the huge disparity in profits underscores how much work the Big Three have ahead of them. Health-care costs, too many workers, and rigid work rules all are obstacles Detroit executives will be targeting this summer when they negotiate a new four-year labor deal with the United Auto Workers. "There still remains a competitive cost gap," says Harbour.

 

GM continues to wring better productivity out of its factories. The auto giant's improvement on the plant floor "demonstrates we are transforming the company for sustainable, long-term success," said Gary Cowger, GM's group vice-president for global manufacturing and labor relations.

 

But there is clearly much more work to be done in union negotiations and the vehicles Detroit is selling. In North America last year, GM lost $1,436 a vehicle, Chrysler lost $1,072 per car, and Ford bled a staggering $5,234 per vehicle in red ink , according to Harbour.

 

Retiree health-care costs remain a huge burden: Paying those benefits for thousands of retired American auto workers amounts to a handicap of at least $1,500 per vehicle.

 

Sales, Prices, and Capacity

There are other serious problems. A big one, says Harbour, is the fact that Detroit's carmakers just don't sell enough vehicles to keep their plants running at full capacity. When sales fall short of production, the Big Three pay union workers most of the wages and have other fixed costs associated with the factories.

 

GM uses 93% of its capacity—the same as Honda—and its business in North America is close to breaking even. But Chrysler used only 88% of its capacity last year and Ford 77%. Both lost a lot of money. Toyota uses 103% of its capacity, which means it's running its assembly lines at full speed and uses overtime to build even more cars.

 

Of the Japanese, only Nissan has trouble using all of its capacity. As sales slumped last year, the company's plants dropped to 77% of capacity and profits took a dive.

 

Another problem for automakers: American brands generally command lower prices for their vehicles. GM, for example, averages about $21,000 a vehicle, according to the company's recent financial statements. Toyota brings in more than $23,000 a vehicle, giving the company a big advantage.

 

Winning Concessions from Unions

Another cost issue is nonassembly labor. Harbour says that the Japanese plants in the U.S. use cheaper contract labor for most tasks not related to building a car, such as janitorial maintenance. Even though the domestic manufacturers have gotten the UAW to agree to outsourcing of such work, some jobs are still done with the higher cost of union wages and benefits.

 

The paid furlough clause, known as the JOBS bank, may be cut significantly. The Big Three will try to limit how long a worker can remain on paid layoff, says one union official who asked not to be named. If Detroit can reduce the JOBS bank benefit, automakers may cut even more jobs and close more factories. Says Harbour: "To be more competitive, the UAW has to accept fewer jobs."

 

article

[OAC_Sparky]

]Ford only lost $5,000 per vehicle because of a lot of one-time charges related to restructuring. Hopefully some of that was for buying YOU out.

Dumbass.

Could be why some people haven't got their cheque yet -- they have to spread the losses over a few fiscal quarters....

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

Ford only lost $5,000 per vehicle because of a lot of one-time charges related to restructuring. Hopefully some of that was for buying YOU out.

Dumbass.

 

 

 

 

OK explain this then ole mighty Pioneer

 

 

Although Mulally lacks in-depth auto industry knowledge, he is also free of many of the intellectual biases and habits that have gotten Detroit into so much trouble. "He doesn't know what he doesn't know," says Ford Americas President Mark Fields. When Mulally was reviewing the company's 2008 product line last September, for example, he was told that Ford loses close to $3,000 every time a customer buys a Focus compact, according to one executive. "Why haven't you figured out a way to make a profit?" he asked. Executives explained that Ford needed the high sales volume to maintain the company's CAFE, or corporate average fuel economy, rating and that the plant that makes the car is a high-cost UAW factory in Michigan. "That's not what I asked," he shot back. "I want to know why no one figured out a way to build this car at a profit, whether it has to be built in Michigan or China or India, if that's what it takes." Nobody had a good answer.

 

From this article. article

 

 

Hopefully some of that was for buying YOU out.

 

No I've decided to sit around in GEN and bleed the company as much as I can. I should have a lot of time to come out here and post and stir shit up, and hopefully aggravate the fuck out of you. :happy feet:

[OAC_Sparky]

No I've decided to sit around in GEN and bleed the company as much as I can. I should have a lot of time to come out here and post and stir shit up, and hopefully aggravate the fuck out of you. :happy feet:

Have fun until September then, when you get no GEN AND no buyout.

 

THEN we'll see who'll be aggravated.

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

That's less than $5,000 per vehicle, ain't it?

 

For right now, but they still took a $5,000 hit per vehicle last year. And from the looks of things they are in for another stellar year. Paint it any way you want it, Ford is losing their ass. :titanic: :titanic:

 

 

Why not design something someone wants to buy and make a profit, rather than loosing money????

 

 

 

Did you see the deal between the UAW and GM? Seems you won't be sitting in GEN for very long.

 

I got faith in the UAW they'll take care of us! I thought you were the one that wanted to keep GEN?? :rolleyes:

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

Have fun until September then, when you get no GEN AND no buyout.

 

THEN we'll see who'll be aggravated.

 

 

We'll have to see what happens in Sept. Sparky.

 

Either way I'll have more time to come out here and get under you and Pioneer skin. :D

[OAC_Sparky]

We'll have to see what happens in Sept. Sparky.

 

Either way I'll have more time to come out here and get under you and Pioneer skin. :D

You don't bother me.

 

I feel sorry for you if that's your only goal in life. Quite sad, says a lot.

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

They will keep GEN, but there will be different rules. No more sitting in GEN for years while turning down transfer opportunities.

 

Personally it should be done away with COMPLETELY!!! But I'm not the one calling the shots.

 

 

Better start thinking. Maybe I'll see you in Michigan, maybe I won't. Choice is yours.

 

You won't EVER have to worry about seeing me in Michigan. You can't pay me enough money to move to that shit hole.

[Imawhosure]

Ain't it funny how when we look at those who abuse the system, meaning they are screwing the conpany, meaning they are screwing us and our jobs, the reasonable position becomes instantly clear!!!!!!!!!!

 

Gen is going to go no matter what this duffus says. How do we know? Because if it does not, it gives nobody any incentive to retire, move to another plant, etc. This contract is about Ford, not the UAW. Why would they sign a contract that will continue to make them bleed??? No, Ford knows what will put them back into the black, and settling for less just prolongs them filing for bankruptcy. They will demand what they need, not settle for less, and could care less what anyone says since the responsibility of its retirees will fall on the taxpayer.

 

United flys, LTV makes steel, and Ford will build autos. Bankruptcy just absolves them from anything they might owe to us and you. How hard a line everyone takes will determine if they are union, and if anyone UAW still works there.

 

Sorry to tell you, that is reality!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless they make money, they have a right to bankruptcy, and they will do it............and honestly with the government just saying nothing about Ford and GM taking it on the chops for being a fully American company having these benefits when they were required by the masses to do so, who can blame them?!?!?!?!?!

[OAC_Sparky]

You won't EVER have to worry about seeing me in Michigan. You can't pay me enough money to move to that shit hole.

I'm sure that the derelicts down on Fort Street are breathing a sigh of relief that their property values won't be dropping soon.

[Fox Mulder]

One of the reasons for Ford sales being down, is fleet sales or lack thereof.

 

We don't make the fleet queen Atlanta Taurus anymore, this should in the long run make Ford more profitable.

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

You don't bother me.

 

I feel sorry for you if that's your only goal in life. Quite sad, says a lot.

 

 

Oh I don't, huh. Is that why you follow me to just about every thread and post some smart ass remark to me??

 

 

I don't want you feeling sorry for me. Life will go on after Ford. I just like to keep the shit storm stirred.

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

I'm sure that the derelicts down on Fort Street are breathing a sigh of relief that their property values won't be dropping soon.

 

 

Didn't think it could get much lower up there..???

 

 

Thinking about moving up to Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. :D

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

Ain't it funny how when we look at those who abuse the system, meaning they are screwing the conpany, meaning they are screwing us and our jobs, the reasonable position becomes instantly clear!!!!!!!!!!

 

Gen is going to go no matter what this duffus says. How do we know? Because if it does not, it gives nobody any incentive to retire, move to another plant, etc. This contract is about Ford, not the UAW. Why would they sign a contract that will continue to make them bleed??? No, Ford knows what will put them back into the black, and settling for less just prolongs them filing for bankruptcy. They will demand what they need, not settle for less, and could care less what anyone says since the responsibility of its retirees will fall on the taxpayer.

 

United flys, LTV makes steel, and Ford will build autos. Bankruptcy just absolves them from anything they might owe to us and you. How hard a line everyone takes will determine if they are union, and if anyone UAW still works there.

 

Sorry to tell you, that is reality!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless they make money, they have a right to bankruptcy, and they will do it............and honestly with the government just saying nothing about Ford and GM taking it on the chops for being a fully American company having these benefits when they were required by the masses to do so, who can blame them?!?!?!?!?!

 

You know Imawhosure, I kind of hope they keep it. That should finish them and the UAW off a little quicker. Hopefully the UAW will stand firm on this issue and cut their own throats.

[Ovaltine]

Ford only lost $5,000 per vehicle because of a lot of one-time charges related to restructuring. Hopefully some of that was for buying YOU out.

 

Dumbass.

WOW! THESE BIG FONTS AND MULTI-COLORS ARE COOOOLLL!

 

IT'S A BUMMER THAT THEY DON'T GO ANY HIGHER THAN A 7!

 

-Ovaltine

Edited June 4, 2007 by Ovaltine

[manufmanager]

WOW! THESE BIG FONTS AND MULTI-COLORS ARE COOOOLLL!

 

IT'S A BUMMER THAT THEY DON'T GO ANY HIGHER THAN A 7!

 

-Ovaltine

 

 

3, 5, 7 thousand, it is still a significant loss. Most one time charges were taken care of in the 4th qtr. of 2006. The defecit now is due to the monthly drop in volume but the increase in pensions being paid out to the massive amount of retirees. The only vehicles that make any money are the F-150, Fusion and Econoline and Edge. That isn't enough to sustain the company now that they have to make payments on the loan they took against all of their plants. They need similar increases as their rivals or the cash is going to run out again. UAW or not, the company won't be cutting paychecks.

[Furious1Auto]

Ain't it funny how when we look at those who abuse the system, meaning they are screwing the conpany, meaning they are screwing us and our jobs, the reasonable position becomes instantly clear!!!!!!!!!!

 

Gen is going to go no matter what this duffus says. How do we know? Because if it does not, it gives nobody any incentive to retire, move to another plant, etc. This contract is about Ford, not the UAW. Why would they sign a contract that will continue to make them bleed??? No, Ford knows what will put them back into the black, and settling for less just prolongs them filing for bankruptcy. They will demand what they need, not settle for less, and could care less what anyone says since the responsibility of its retirees will fall on the taxpayer.

 

United flys, LTV makes steel, and Ford will build autos. Bankruptcy just absolves them from anything they might owe to us and you. How hard a line everyone takes will determine if they are union, and if anyone UAW still works there.

 

Sorry to tell you, that is reality!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless they make money, they have a right to bankruptcy, and they will do it............and honestly with the government just saying nothing about Ford and GM taking it on the chops for being a fully American company having these benefits when they were required by the masses to do so, who can blame them?!?!?!?!?!

If people need incentive to retire then why hasn't the company negotiated a mandatory 30 years and out? If people knew that they only had 30 years and their employment would be terminated they would have their shit together!

[slapshot2]

If people need incentive to retire then why hasn't the company negotiated a mandatory 30 years and out? If people knew that they only had 30 years and their employment would be terminated they would have their shit together!

 

Because companies in the private sector can't force people to retire, it's discriminatory. If you can still do your job safely and efficiently then they can't force you out while it's still there. The lawsuits would be tremendous. There is nothing to negotiate, unless you want to try to get in front of the Supreme Court. It's probably easier to just let people stay and let the union worry about explaining it to the members.

[Furious1Auto]

Because companies in the private sector can't force people to retire, it's discriminatory. If you can still do your job safely and efficiently then they can't force you out while it's still there. The lawsuits would be tremendous. There is nothing to negotiate, unless you want to try to get in front of the Supreme Court. It's probably easier to just let people stay and let the union worry about explaining it to the members.

So, your saying that we cannot negotiate a mandatory 30 year and out policy as a condition of employment at the time of hire! Why then can we negotiate away other law given rights! It is against the law for an employer to withhold income from your check without express written consent of the employee or a court order. I know a company that forces you to sign a waiver at the time of hire as a condition of employment to cover any incidental equipment damage charging them $500.00 for each incident. They have withheld many peoples last checks and even billed ex employees for even minor damage that cost less than $500.00 to repair! Most of the time they don't even fix it if it's not severe! The company could make all new employees sign an agreement that they are aware that their employment is to only last 30 years and allow for extensions in certain circumstances. Maybe you have a kid in college, or lose your spouse. Then it could be extended to 35 years. I'm not suggesting forcing the current veterans out. They would get sued!

Edited June 4, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[Furious1Auto]

This article is even BETTER!!!

 

How Long Can Ford Lose $5,000 a Car?

 

Harbour Consulting's auto productivity report is out, and while most makers are showing improvement, the numbers look bad for Ford

 

First, the good news: Detroit's Big Three carmakers continue to narrow the gap with the Japanese when it comes to how long their factories need to build a car. The bad news is that gains in productivity don't begin to move the three companies into the black as their overseas rivals continue to reap healthy profits.

 

So says the annual Harbour Report on productivity, which measures factory productivity in labor hours per vehicle, released by Harbour Consulting in Troy, Mich. Toyota Motor's U.S. factories are the most productive, taking a total of 29.9 hours of labor to build a vehicle, including making engines and transmissions. Nissan (NSANY) was just behind Toyota with 30 hours per car, and Honda Motor (HMC) wasn't far behind that with 31.6 hours.

 

Productive but Not Profitable

General Motors' (GM) plants take 32.4 hours to build a car, making its factories almost as productive as Honda's, according to the study. Chrysler was close, too, taking just under 33 hours to build a car. Ford Motor (F), however, is the laggard, requiring more than 35 hours per car. "Toyota is still on top," says Harbour Consulting President Ron Harbour, but he added that "it is now a very slim and marginal lead."

 

But Toyota also saw its productivity drop 1.8% because of the launch of the new Tundra pickup. Nissan dropped even further, down 5.3%, but for the most part productivity improved across the board for the rest of automakers. Chrysler was up 2.4%, GM by 2.5%, and Honda by 2.7%. Even Ford saw productivity improve by 1.9%.

 

Given the fact that domestically owned car plants are nearly as productive as Japanese plants, the huge disparity in profits underscores how much work the Big Three have ahead of them. Health-care costs, too many workers, and rigid work rules all are obstacles Detroit executives will be targeting this summer when they negotiate a new four-year labor deal with the United Auto Workers. "There still remains a competitive cost gap," says Harbour.

 

GM continues to wring better productivity out of its factories. The auto giant's improvement on the plant floor "demonstrates we are transforming the company for sustainable, long-term success," said Gary Cowger, GM's group vice-president for global manufacturing and labor relations.

 

But there is clearly much more work to be done in union negotiations and the vehicles Detroit is selling. In North America last year, GM lost $1,436 a vehicle, Chrysler lost $1,072 per car, and Ford bled a staggering $5,234 per vehicle in red ink , according to Harbour.

 

Retiree health-care costs remain a huge burden: Paying those benefits for thousands of retired American auto workers amounts to a handicap of at least $1,500 per vehicle.

 

Sales, Prices, and Capacity

There are other serious problems. A big one, says Harbour, is the fact that Detroit's carmakers just don't sell enough vehicles to keep their plants running at full capacity. When sales fall short of production, the Big Three pay union workers most of the wages and have other fixed costs associated with the factories.

 

GM uses 93% of its capacity—the same as Honda—and its business in North America is close to breaking even. But Chrysler used only 88% of its capacity last year and Ford 77%. Both lost a lot of money. Toyota uses 103% of its capacity, which means it's running its assembly lines at full speed and uses overtime to build even more cars.

 

Of the Japanese, only Nissan has trouble using all of its capacity. As sales slumped last year, the company's plants dropped to 77% of capacity and profits took a dive.

 

Another problem for automakers: American brands generally command lower prices for their vehicles. GM, for example, averages about $21,000 a vehicle, according to the company's recent financial statements. Toyota brings in more than $23,000 a vehicle, giving the company a big advantage.

 

Winning Concessions from Unions

Another cost issue is nonassembly labor. Harbour says that the Japanese plants in the U.S. use cheaper contract labor for most tasks not related to building a car, such as janitorial maintenance. Even though the domestic manufacturers have gotten the UAW to agree to outsourcing of such work, some jobs are still done with the higher cost of union wages and benefits.

 

The paid furlough clause, known as the JOBS bank, may be cut significantly. The Big Three will try to limit how long a worker can remain on paid layoff, says one union official who asked not to be named. If Detroit can reduce the JOBS bank benefit, automakers may cut even more jobs and close more factories. Says Harbour: "To be more competitive, the UAW has to accept fewer jobs."

 

article

Their stating productivity and man hours as if it is a reflection of labor costs. The Fusion is built in a facility that can afford extra man hours because the labor cost is 1/10th of that in U.S. plants. As far as retiree benefits cost, who told them to tack it on to the purchase price of the vehicles. They're sitting on $38,000,000 and after Volvo is sold off possible $44,000,000. They can't afford they're overhead though! Just because a corp. can't meet they're projected profit and report a loss doesn't mean that they are not covering their overhead! Set you business forecast and budget within realistic limits and then report a profit! I'm sure that won't happen until the new contract is settled though!

Edited June 6, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[el norte]

Personally it should be done away with COMPLETELY!!! But I'm not the one calling the shots.

You won't EVER have to worry about seeing me in Michigan. You can't pay me enough money to move to that shit hole.

I think I just pissed my pants laughing so hard. Ford will be fine, it's probably going to take alittle bit, but there's enough people who care about ford to make a difference. Instead of complaining, why not try to do something extra to help. Like any succesful team would do! :party2:

[manufmanager]

So your saying the Expedition, the Super Duty, Ranger, CV/GM, and the whole Mercury/Lincoln lineup is produced at a loss?

 

I don't believe the Expedition is selling enough volume to cover salaries, capital investment (new body shop) and incentives. My mistake on the Super Duty, it is a cash cow. The bottom line is if a vehicle isn't making money, drop it or find a way to turn a profit. It's not rocket science but it does require a drive from the company to get their strategy in order.

[Furious1Auto]

I don't believe the Expedition is selling enough volume to cover salaries, capital investment (new body shop) and incentives. My mistake on the Super Duty, it is a cash cow. The bottom line is if a vehicle isn't making money, drop it or find a way to turn a profit. It's not rocket science but it does require a drive from the company to get their strategy in order.

I see your point but, after a huge investment in a platform it is better to give it a face lift or make other attempts to turn it around first. A perfect example is what is about to happen to the 500. In 08' it will be a Taurus with fusion styling and more room! Watch it take off.

[uRfk9AcDfo9Wui]

Spoken like a bitter, soon-to-be ex employee. You should be proud.

 

 

Why THANK YOU Mr. I don't have a life so I spend 24/7 sitting out here posting on BON looking for a friend. I am honored that you took time out of your busy posting schedule to reply back to me. Nice to know I'm getting under your skin, I'll try to work at it a little hard from now on.