Ford continues to struggle...

Solution, make a better product. Ford makes some really ugly, crappy cars, as does GM. Not to get started on another American car bashing thread, but these two companies have to rethink their product, not just keep laying people off. The Mustang is an uninspiring car that should be inspiring, the F-150 Triton powerplant totally lacks backbone, and Ford only maintains top numbers in many categories because of fleet sales. My brother recently got a brand new F-150 crew cab as a company vehicle which he mocks relentlessly. We drove it around the other day and did many take-offs from a dead stop with the pedal on the floor. Absolutely underwhelming performance.
 
Tasty said:
My brother recently got a brand new F-150 crew cab as a company vehicle which he mocks relentlessly. We drove it around the other day and did many take-offs from a dead stop with the pedal on the floor. Absolutely underwhelming performance.
Click to expand...



I suppose that doesn't really surprise me. I've felt the new bodied F150s look too large for Ford's relatively conservative HP/TQ figures.



But hey, a truck is a truck. It's got a job to do (one would hope), so why gauge it like a car?
 
Mustang uninspiring? I think it's a great looking car, much better than the Mustangs of the last couple decades. I haven't liked a Mustang since the '79 Indy pace car replica which begat the '80 Cobra. But they messed with that after a couple years...the first SVO was cool, but...



I wish you bashers would make up your mind who is making their numbers with fleet sales...because in this thread it's Ford, while in the GM bashing thread, it was GM. They can't both be leading the same segments. Seems to me there are a bunch of Camry's in the rental fleets too...I swear if I took a Camry and put a Ford or Chevy logo on it you guys would hate it too.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
Mustang uninspiring? I think it's a great looking car, much better than the Mustangs of the last couple decades. I haven't liked a Mustang since the '79 Indy pace car replica which begat the '80 Cobra. But they messed with that after a couple years...the first SVO was cool, but...



I wish you bashers would make up your mind who is making their numbers with fleet sales...because in this thread it's Ford, while in the GM bashing thread, it was GM. They can't both be leading the same segments. Seems to me there are a bunch of Camry's in the rental fleets too...I swear if I took a Camry and put a Ford or Chevy logo on it you guys would hate it too.
Click to expand...

Agreed the fact that the Mustang has out lived many other cars both import and domestic is saying something. Also the fact that many many imports and domestic (namely the Dodge SRT4) target the Mustang then any other domestic car just tells me they have been butt raped by a stang and left bitter way to many times ;).
 
truzoom said:
I suppose that doesn't really surprise me. I've felt the new bodied F150s look too large for Ford's relatively conservative HP/TQ figures.



But hey, a truck is a truck. It's got a job to do (one would hope), so why gauge it like a car?
Click to expand...



I'm not gauging it like a car. Torque is what moves your vehicle off the line, the F-150 doesn't have enough of it IMO. Nissan and Toyota get more HP AND torque out of their V6s in midsize trucks than Ford does in its FULL size. I just don't get it. I love the looks of the F-150, it just needs some balls.



Setec - I'll give you that the Mustang looks better now than it has in years, but the design I thought was spectacular when it came out now looks stale to me. The rear end needs some retooling. I don't hate American car makers, the just need to make all their cars the way I like them. Easy enough right? :lol



Also, your right about fleet sales to some extent. It seems the Camry is a major leader in fleet sales, but the F-150 hasn't been the number one selling truck in the country for 29 years or whatever it is with strictly individual owner sales. I think we can all connect the dots on how that vehicle stays on top.
 
Tasty said:
I'll give you that the Mustang looks better now than it has in years, but the design I thought was spectacular when it came out now looks stale to me.
Click to expand...



Why...because it looks like an almost 40 yo design? :think: ;)



I don't hate American car makers, the just need to make all their cars the way I like them. Easy enough right? :lol
Click to expand...



Yeah, that's it! Maybe you'll be more successful than me, I'm a GM man and I can't get GM to make them the way I like them, either.
 
The Mustang and the Lincoln LS is the only FORD product that I like or buy if I had the money ...LoL



I rent Towncars when I have an urge to smoke cigars on longer trips. :woot2:
 
Other than the Mustang and F-250s, I can't think of a Ford product I'd realisticly own (Ford GT doesn't count, I can't afford it). Plus, after owning a Mazda which is 30% Ford, I can't say the reliability is there for Ford or Mazda.
 
I am on my 4th Ford not counting those my family had when I was a kid and I can't really agree that they aren't reliable as that hasn't been my experience. Of the Ford vehicles we had when I was a kid I recall a 1965 Ford Mustang Coupe and a 1967 Comet Wagon and then a 1971 Ford LTD Country Squire Wagon.



My first Ford was the LTD Wagon (it was also my first car, a hand me down from my dad). We bought it new and I traded it in with close to 150,000 miles for a 1981 Ford Courier pickup. Yes, the Courier is a Mazda but, it had the Ford 2.3l engine in it. The truck had 12 miles on it when I bought it and 110,000 when I sold it. I NEVER had a single issue with either other than a clutch that I wore out in Courier.



My third Ford is my Mustang. It currently has 76,000 miles and again the only problem I have ever had was a carbon fouled idle air control valve. I could have just cleaned it and re-installed it but, I decided to replace it. The car has been rock solid reliable.



We also have a 2004 Taurus. The Taurus currently has 35,000 miles and not a single problem out of it either.



I think it if you look at differences in how the US auto industry and the Japanese auto industry are run you will see how they have an advantage.



First and foremost is the Japanese auto industry is heavily subsidized by their government.



Second they do not have any kind of retirement or pensions. When you retire it is your family who supports you in Japan. Yes, they do offer retirement packages to their workers in the US but, consider that they have only had plants here for close to 30 years. Think about how many workers they are supporting vs how many the US auto industry is supporting.



Given those two advantages I have seen several articles that figure the Japanese have a $1500 advantage on each and every vehicle they build. It is not that we cannot build a vehicle comparible in quality to the Japanese, it is that we cannot build a vehicle comparible without cutting into profits on the already small margin.



Over the years it seems even our own government has done its own fair share of sabotage on the US auto industry. Toyota was able to establish their foothold here in the US at GM's expense...



Stelzer describes the events in which "our own government sabotaged General Motors in favor of Japanese car companies, and which led to the problems now confronting GM."



First, was the acquisition by GM dealerships of Japanese auto franchises. In 1966 as a GM executive, Stelzer opposed this policy. In a confrontation with a GM dealer, Burt Chevrolet, which wanted to take on a Toyota franchise, Stelzer reminded the dealer that in 1937, "GM had put up 75 percent of the capital to start his dealership, with a generous contract that allowed him to assume full ownership out of profits." Stelzer told Burt: "...[l]f you want to take on Toyota that is your prerogative, but not in Chevrolet facilities, nor utilization of any personnel in this dealership who had been trained by General Motors. If you take on Toyota it will be at another location with no ties to Chevy facilities or personnel."



The result of the confrontation is related by Stelzer:



"Three days later I received a call from a GM Vice-President who applauded me for my stand, but who said that Toyota had complained to the U.S. State Department, and that a high government official had ordered GM, and me, to allow Burt Chevrolet to take on Toyota after only a small investment in signs and an initial parts order, thereby relieving Toyota of the millions of man hours and billions of dollars to develop its own dealer organization, as GM did, and in which I played a significant role for 30 years.



"To put it bluntly, our own government gave Japan squatters rights to GM dealerships and blatantly violated traditional concepts of property rights. While not listed on GM financial statements as an asset, its dealer network was its biggest asset...built over a period of more than 45 years at a cost of billions of dollars. Yet our own government forced GM to surrender it to the same country that bombed Pearl Harbor less than 25 years earlier, without one dime of compensation! Subsequently, nearly all of the first 2,000 Japanese car outlets in the U.S. road 'piggy-back' on GM dealer facilities...an absolute outrage."



Consequently, Stelzer notes, GM dealerships were soon selling fewer GM cars and more Japanese cars because they were cheaper and dealer profits were greater.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever want to see a time when the US auto industry goes under and foreign vehicles are all we have to chose from. I am generally a conservative and don't really believe in protectionism but, if the US auto industry is going to survive something is going to have to be done. Do we really want to live in a society of consumers where we don't manufacture anything and have to rely on other countries for everything?? That is where we are headed...
 
I am on my 4th Ford not counting those my family had when I was a kid and I can't really agree that they aren't reliable as that hasn't been my experience. Of the Ford vehicles we had when I was a kid I recall a 1965 Ford Mustang Coupe and a 1967 Comet Wagon and then a 1971 Ford LTD Country Squire Wagon.



My first Ford was the LTD Wagon (it was also my first car, a hand me down from my dad). We bought it new and I traded it in with close to 150,000 miles for a 1981 Ford Courier pickup. Yes, the Courier is a Mazda but, it had the Ford 2.3l engine in it. The truck had 12 miles on it when I bought it and 110,000 when I sold it. I NEVER had a single issue with either other than a clutch that I wore out in Courier.



My third Ford is my Mustang. It currently has 76,000 miles and again the only problem I have ever had was a carbon fouled idle air control valve. I could have just cleaned it and re-installed it but, I decided to replace it. The car has been rock solid reliable.



We also have a 2004 Taurus. The Taurus currently has 35,000 miles and not a single problem out of it either.



I think it if you look at differences in how the US auto industry and the Japanese auto industry are run you will see how they have an advantage.



First and foremost is the Japanese auto industry is heavily subsidized by their government.



Second they do not have any kind of retirement or pensions. When you retire it is your family who supports you in Japan. Yes, they do offer retirement packages to their workers in the US but, consider that they have only had plants here for close to 30 years. Think about how many workers they are supporting vs how many the US auto industry is supporting.



Given those two advantages I have seen several articles that figure the Japanese have a $1500 advantage on each and every vehicle they build. It is not that we cannot build a vehicle comparible in quality to the Japanese, it is that we cannot build a vehicle comparible without cutting into profits on the already small margin.



Over the years it seems even our own government has done its own fair share of sabotage on the US auto industry. Toyota was able to establish their foothold here in the US at GM's expense...



Stelzer describes the events in which "our own government sabotaged General Motors in favor of Japanese car companies, and which led to the problems now confronting GM."



First, was the acquisition by GM dealerships of Japanese auto franchises. In 1966 as a GM executive, Stelzer opposed this policy. In a confrontation with a GM dealer, Burt Chevrolet, which wanted to take on a Toyota franchise, Stelzer reminded the dealer that in 1937, "GM had put up 75 percent of the capital to start his dealership, with a generous contract that allowed him to assume full ownership out of profits." Stelzer told Burt: "...[l]f you want to take on Toyota that is your prerogative, but not in Chevrolet facilities, nor utilization of any personnel in this dealership who had been trained by General Motors. If you take on Toyota it will be at another location with no ties to Chevy facilities or personnel."



The result of the confrontation is related by Stelzer:



"Three days later I received a call from a GM Vice-President who applauded me for my stand, but who said that Toyota had complained to the U.S. State Department, and that a high government official had ordered GM, and me, to allow Burt Chevrolet to take on Toyota after only a small investment in signs and an initial parts order, thereby relieving Toyota of the millions of man hours and billions of dollars to develop its own dealer organization, as GM did, and in which I played a significant role for 30 years.



"To put it bluntly, our own government gave Japan squatters rights to GM dealerships and blatantly violated traditional concepts of property rights. While not listed on GM financial statements as an asset, its dealer network was its biggest asset...built over a period of more than 45 years at a cost of billions of dollars. Yet our own government forced GM to surrender it to the same country that bombed Pearl Harbor less than 25 years earlier, without one dime of compensation! Subsequently, nearly all of the first 2,000 Japanese car outlets in the U.S. road 'piggy-back' on GM dealer facilities...an absolute outrage."



Consequently, Stelzer notes, GM dealerships were soon selling fewer GM cars and more Japanese cars because they were cheaper and dealer profits were greater.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever want to see a time when the US auto industry goes under and foreign vehicles are all we have to chose from. I am generally a conservative and don't really believe in protectionism but, if the US auto industry is going to survive something is going to have to be done. Do we really want to live in a society of consumers where we don't manufacture anything and have to rely on other countries for everything?? That is where we are headed...
 
Bob-while all you have mentioned it true, the fact is cars like the Taurus and the Contour from the 90s and now the Ford Five Hundred, Fusion, etc are all breath-takingly bland. Hmmm, the 244 hp Accord, 265 hp Maxima, 235 hp Sonata or the 203 hp Five Hundred, which one do you think I am going to pass on? Oh well, at least it is more appealing than that nasty Malibu of GM. ;)



My 626 has around 135,000 miles on it and I've already replaced the a/c compressor, the alternator twice (first one was when my brother still owned it and the car only had 42,000 on it), O2 sensor, plug wires last about 30,000 on this car, the leather on the driver's seat is coming apart, the door seals are simply glued on so in the summer, the glue melts and the seals pull away from the body of the car, stuff like that. Not sure how much of that is Mazda design and how much is Ford but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for both brands. I will say for a small V6 though, acceleration is better than I expected, so it isn't all bad.



My Honda, on the other hand-1st alternator went at 175,000, the starter made it to 265,000, the a/c compressor to 255,000, I changed the O2 sensor at around 120,000 only because I installed a header and the old one wouldn't come out of the old manifold, but the replacement made it to 275,000 miles. I guess I got spoiled. ;)
 
Scottwax said:
Bob-while all you have mentioned it true, the fact is cars like the Taurus and the Contour from the 90s and now the Ford Five Hundred, Fusion, etc are all breath-takingly bland. Hmmm, the 244 hp Accord, 265 hp Maxima, 235 hp Sonata or the 203 hp Five Hundred, which one do you think I am going to pass on? Oh well, at least it is more appealing than that nasty Malibu of GM. ;)
Click to expand...



Personally I think every vehicle in that class is bland. That wasn't my point though. My point is that "build a better car" isn't quite as easy as some would think. Do people really believe that we aren't capable of making a car to higher standards than the Japanese? The problem is, with all the expenses the US auto industry has what would that car cost??? The car still has to make a profit and right now the entire US auto industry is struggling to do that. The entire deck is stacked against the US auto industry.



I honestly can see a future for my kids where there won't be a GM, Ford and people just don't seem to care. For that reason alone I would drive the blandest car on the planet rather than put a dime into Toyota's pocket.
 
rjstaaf said:
I don't think I ever want to see a time when the US auto industry goes under and foreign vehicles are all we have to chose from. I am generally a conservative and don't really believe in protectionism but, if the US auto industry is going to survive something is going to have to be done. Do we really want to live in a society of consumers where we don't manufacture anything and have to rely on other countries for everything?? That is where we are headed...
Click to expand...



Government subsidies are not unique to Japan. American car companies won't be allowed to go under and just die because it's not good for the U.S. Government subsidies will keep them afloat just like they have the lame *** airline industry that can't figure out how to turn a profit. One of the real problems is that unions suck the life out of these companies. I think it's very telling that companies have to go back and slash pension programs and such just to keep their doors open.
 
Tasty said:
Government subsidies are not unique to Japan. American car companies won't be allowed to go under and just die because it's not good for the U.S. Government subsidies will keep them afloat just like they have the lame *** airline industry that can't figure out how to turn a profit. One of the real problems is that unions suck the life out of these companies. I think it's very telling that companies have to go back and slash pension programs and such just to keep their doors open.
Click to expand...



You might also be suprised to learn that even with record profits we also subsidize the US Oil Industry with our tax dollars.



I do believe it is the unions that are going to have to wake up and realize they are going to have to compromise if they want the industry to survive. It has only been recently that they have come to that realization.



What I would like to see is the US play the game the same way the Japanese do, lets stack on some tarrifs on Japanese imports. They do it to us, turnabout is fair play....
 
Actually, I did know that oil was subsidized. It's a shame that most of the voters in this country do not. My whole thinking is that if you can't figure out how to make the company fly on your own, then it should be allowed to die. Why should we fund mismanaged businesses with inept management and greedy unionized employees? I understand that keeping these companies around is good for us in some ways, but where do you draw the line?
 
Tasty said:
Actually, I did know that oil was subsidized. It's a shame that most of the voters in this country do not. My whole thinking is that if you can't figure out how to make the company fly on your own, then it should be allowed to die. Why should we fund mismanaged businesses with inept management and greedy unionized employees? I understand that keeping these companies around is good for us in some ways, but where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...



I don't think it is just good in "some ways", we NEED them here. Look at the problems we already have with our dependence on foreign oil. Imagine the problems we will have when we have to rely on other countries for all of our manufactured goods.
 
rjstaaf said:
Personally I think every vehicle in that class is bland. That wasn't my point though. My point is that "build a better car" isn't quite as easy as some would think. Do people really believe that we aren't capable of making a car to higher standards than the Japanese? The problem is, with all the expenses the US auto industry has what would that car cost??? The car still has to make a profit and right now the entire US auto industry is struggling to do that. The entire deck is stacked against the US auto industry.
Click to expand...



If Dodge can make more exciting cars there is no reason that GM and Ford can't either. I have no doubt we can make cars equal to or better than the Germans or Japanese. For some reason though, not only is the styling bland and the engine choice for sedans unexciting for the most part but the interiors (and GM is especially guilty of this) look and feel cheap. Why not spend another $500 on upgraded materials? Add it to the price too, I think people would pay it if they could get a noticably more upscale interior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top