• Hi Guest!
    You can help ensure that British Car Forum (BCF) continues to provide a great place to engage in the British car hobby! If you find BCF a beneficial community, please consider supporting our efforts with a subscription.
    There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this gawd-aweful banner
Tips
Tips

Sammy, you were right about Ford!

Share this page

MGA Steve

MGA Steve

Jedi Warrior
Offline
Sammy B., you predicted that Ford wasn't far behind GM in the money-losing business. And, based on last week's news conference with Bill Ford, sounds like their overseas production is all that is keeping them alive.
His statements about Ford and Volvo engineers working together to improve Ford car safety and building more hybrid SUVs did not sound like massive changes to me. And spreading their massive layoffs and plant closures over so many years does not sound like "crisis mode" either.

So, in spite of being a Ford guy since the 1960s, you'll have to pardon my reservations that this is not just business as usual. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cryin.gif
 
We're nearing the time where Ford and GM may go the way of MG/Rover I fear.
 
If they don't take lessons from MG/Rover's (actually more British Leyland's) demise then yes, that's exactly the way that they will go. The examples are out there, and are still recent enough to be relevant, but is there anyone at the helm of either company that doesn't think that he knows everything already and is willing to learn?

Corvettes would probably still be made, but spun off into their own brand, just known as "Corvette"....I could see Cadillac surviving as an independent concern going against Lexus and the european (German) brands, but as for Ford? I just don't know.
 
Steve,
It's not that I'm some sort of rocket scientist or business genious. I basically just looked at the sales numbers, trends etc... Once people got over the "we like the new Mustang" hype, there just wasn't a lot of there there. 160,000 Mustangs a year isn't enough to save Ford.

It's very sad, because there are a lot of shareholders in both Ford and GM who are losing significant wealth because of executives who are unwilling to change course.

Interesting, isn't it, that the core strategy now is more hybrids? Tough to do, I'd say, when you have no internal hybrid product...Ford is buying Toyota's first-gen system. There's no way they can be competitive.

GM still has enough cash to last nearly two years. Ford has a little less. Neither want bankruptcy protection. It's hard to say which company is better off...probably Ford, since they have a slightly better product mix at the mass market. (GM has better higher-end products, but worse-off in the mass-Chevy area.)

I don't think you'll ever see a complete death of Chevy, Ford, Caddy, GMC or Volvo brands, but Saab, Pontiac, Mercury, Hummer, Lincoln, Buick are all on thin ice in the long term.
 
I was watching Autoline Detroit with John McElroy (sp?) and they had the main sales person for Hummer being grilled my John and two other auto press types. Anyway I found it interesting that as part of Hummer’s plan to go global they are opening a plant in South Africa where they plan on building a “international” spec H3 for the world market. This would leave the current assembly lines responsible for North America (Canada, Mexico & the USA) while I found it intriguing that they are looking off shore for more markets I found it a bit sad that GM is incapable of producing their H3 for overseas sales domestically.

I mean what’s that tell you, if its cheaper & easier for them to open a brand new plant in South Africa, than it is to produce two different spec vehicles on an already existing assembly line or if they’re that different create separate domestic plant. But I’m sure it’s probably labor cost related more than anything else like tariffs & the like.
 
I think alot of the domestic automakers problems stem from unions and high labour costs here in North America....I don't mean to offend anyone but a installing bumpers on GMC Envoy's all day isn't a 70-80k job. This gives overseas firms a huge advantage as they don't pay their workers half as much as they would get here...this leaves alot of extra cash around for research/developments etc.
Also Domestic automakers(GM especially) need to stop imitating what successful Japanese companies are doing and go back to their own style...I think their would still be a market for resonably priced larger vehicles rather than just try to duplicate Japanese economy cars, you can't beat Japan at cheap economical cars. GM has pretty much turned the chevy line into wanna be cheap Japanese cars(ie Cobalt).
Ford isn't as bad in this respect as they've come out with some larger cars recently....I've noticed the Lincoln Zephryr(not sure on spelling) has sold pretty well around here, you can't turn a corner without spotting one....The big Chrysler 300 has sold very well. GM needs something in the larger car market....the Impala has absolutly no style!Buicks are steriotyped so that only people of 80+ will touch em, and cadillac's are too pricy to bring in strong numbers.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you'll ever see a complete death of Chevy, Ford, Caddy, GMC or Volvo brands, but Saab, Pontiac, Mercury, Hummer, Lincoln, Buick are all on thin ice in the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't it telling that when Ford and GM bring out a new model, it is always advertised as "competitively priced with" a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord (Ford Fusion) or a BMW 3 Series or Lexus GS300 (Cadillac CTS)? Only Daimler-Chrysler seems to be producing more than one car with no foreign "target competitor"--the Viper, the PT Cruiser, Jeep CJs, the Hemi-Dodges and Chryslers (the Hemi may be a marketing gimmick, but it seems to be working even among non-enthusists). All Ford has without a competitor is the Mustang and all GM has is the Corvette.

The U.S. companies thought they could compete by out-producing the Japanese in big trucks and SUVs. Recent gas price increases burst that bubble. Now what? Is there any vehicle that Ford and GM can produce better, faster, or cheaper than Toyota or Honda?

I realize that mass-market family cars have to compete with the Camry and Accord because they are the best selling sedans in the U.S. My question is, then, what can Ford and GM do to compete? Is there anything that they could design and manufacture that would force Toyota and Honda to compete with them? And, since a significant portion of those Toyotas and Hondas are built in the U.S., do the U.S. companies really matter any more? If not, do they just throw in the towel and sell the Corvette, Ford truck, Volvo, Jaguar, and Cadillac lines and move their headquarters to Europe? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
R6MGS -- Here are some numbers:
Chrysler sold 144K 300s in 2005 (112K in 2004, an increase due to higher incentives and increased availability.)

Chevrolet sold 246K Impalas in 2005 (down from 290K in 2004) and 203K Malibus (up from 179K.) Pontiac did 124K G6s.

The entire Saab division did 36K cars, Hummer 56K, Saturn 105K, and Caddy did 160,000 (led by 61K CTS units.)

Over at Ford: in 2005 they produced 196K Tauruses and almost 185K of the Focus. The 500 was 107K units. The Fusion is very disappointing, with just over 7500 units per month. Its Mercury and Lincoln platform mates, the Milan and Zephyr were worse: 2110 and 2129 per month, respectively.

What's even worse is that total Lincoln: 123,207 and total Mercury:195,000 These numbers hardly justify keeping Mercury, given the cost of marketing and badge production.

Also in the Ford failure department: the Jaguar X-type at 10,941, which is a 50% decline from 2004.

Ford and GM are seeing the largest declines in their trucks and large-to-midsized SUVs (so shock.) But what's interesting is the lack of increase in sedans and minivans, which means that people are not just deciding against a Yukon, Explorer or Expedition, they're deciding against a domestic SUV and choosing a Japanese/Korean minivan or sedan.
 
Anyone rememberback when Smith was head of GM,& Ross Perot
was a shareholder?
Perot told them that they had to quit making junk.
So what did GM do? They bought up Perot's stock at a big price to shut him up.
Hopefully, they'll get some good people in place that make the big decisions.

- Doug
 
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone rememberback when Smith was head of GM,& Ross Perot
was a shareholder?
Perot told them that they had to quit making junk.
So what did GM do? They bought up Perot's stock at a big price to shut him up.
Hopefully, they'll get some good people in place that make the big decisions.

- Doug

[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif
Regardless of what anybody says about him I’ve always liked Ross - graphs & all. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Also in the Ford failure department: the Jaguar X-type at 10,941, which is a 50% decline from 2004.

. . . people are not just deciding against a Yukon, Explorer or Expedition, they're deciding against a domestic SUV and choosing a Japanese/Korean minivan or sedan.

[/ QUOTE ]
The X-Type is just a Ford dressed in Jaguar clothing. I think even American buyers are too sophisticated to fall for paying $30,000 for a car that would be half that if badged as a Ford.

And Ford badly missed the mark when designing an AWD car that was supposed to compete with the BMW 330xi. We tested both, plus the Infiniti G35x, in 2004 and the Jag was not even close in performance to the other two. And the repair record has also been significantly lower than the BMW. My overall impression was that the X-Type is as much a Jag as the 924 was a Porsche.

Is it any wonder that buyers aren't choosing American SUVs when you read the quality and recall data for those vehicles (and the Explorer/Firestone fiasco didn't help)? But it is very interesting that they are NOT choosing a domestic sedan or minivan!
 
Thanks for the official numbers Sammy...I am surprised to see that many Impalas sold...does that include police vehicles??...I forgot about the malibu, and suprised to see it selling at an ok rate, they've gotta compete with Civic/Corola. I know Chrysler isn't in the greatest finacial shape either but their doing alot better than GM and Ford recently...I think Chrysler is actually on the right track.
I've always been a GM guy but the Corvette is probably the only thing they've got that still excites me.
 
Impala and Malibu are favorite of fleet sales, and those numbers include fleet sales (rentals, corporate vehicles, gov't, police.)

Now compare those numbers to these 2005 sales figures:
Toyota Corolla: 341K
Toyota Camry: 431K
Toyota Sienna: 161K
Nissan Altima: 255K
Honda Accord: 369K
Honda Civic: 308K
Honda Odyssey:174K

Steve, you brought up an interesting topic regarding recalls. Now this is just opinion/observation -- the number of recalls isn't as important as 1)How long it takes for a recall to be enacted 2)How quickly issues are communicated from service departments to corporate, and how that process turns into recalls/TSBs. 3)What the fixes are for problems.

For instance, GM 3800V6 engines have long had a problem with intake manifold leaks (like ten years.) My Olds Intrigue had the same problem. Two years ago, GM finally "recalled" Buicks using the engine (including the $40,000 Park Avenue.) The recall was to have dealers throw in two containers of stop leak! (The stuff that plugs your heater core!!!)

Meanwhile, all BMW 540s were recalled about seven years ago for a potential problem that could cause engine failure. They decided to replace engines free of charge...ALL OF THEM! My friend bought a used 540 off ebay, and had no trouble setting an appointment at the Houston BMW dealership. He was given a free loaner.

And then there's my 2002 Corvette, which had all the same problems as my '99 Corvette. When the local dealership kept saying "never heard of that problem," I kept explaining exactly what the cause and fix were for each nagging little issue.

Am I rambling again? Sorry!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ford isn't as bad in this respect as they've come out with some larger cars recently....I've noticed the Lincoln Zephryr(not sure on spelling) has sold pretty well around here, you can't turn a corner without spotting one....

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that the Zephyr is based on a Mazda 6 and is built in Mexico.
 
[ QUOTE ]
GM 3800V6 engines have long had a problem with intake manifold leaks (like ten years.) . . . Meanwhile, all BMW 540s were recalled about seven years ago for a potential problem that could cause engine failure. They decided to replace engines free of charge...ALL OF THEM! . . . Am I rambling again? Sorry!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all--your rambling is more informative than the majority of media news about Detroit!

I think your examples of recalls fit the bill perfectly. How long did Ford know the Explorer had a front suspension problem before the Firestone lawsuits publicized it--10 years? In our consulting engineering business, the word "proactive" in finding and fixing problems is key to our continued business success. I don't think you could ever apply that term to Detroit. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nonod.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
How long did Ford know the Explorer had a front suspension problem before the Firestone lawsuits publicized it--10 years?

[/ QUOTE ]
Steve,

Please don't take this personally but I have to disagree with this blanket statement. I understand & respect the fact that you may feel this way but I feel that it kind of misrepresents what actually happened.

Yes, I admit that I'm a Ford fan and in a pinch a little bit of a Mopar nut too. But my bias aside I think it’s a bit unfair to say Ford knew it had a “problem” with the front suspension on their early Explorers during the whole Firestone tire fiasco I don’t believe there was any real design issue.

Ignoring the very real problem with Firestone tires at the time – I personally think that Ford was right to fight and IMHO didn’t hide or do anything wrong. The Explorer like “all” true SUVs have a higher rollover rate than normal passenger cars. Now I know a lot of folks would care not to remember but long before they became popular or where even called “SUVs”, anyone who owned a true off road capable vehicle – understood that while it might work well in the rough, it was never designed with normal over the pavement driving – let alone an emergency driving situation. If that is the problem we’re talking about here, then I guess every auto manufacture is guilty of the same thing.

Now I’m aware that many critics of the Ford Explorer sight or point to the latest re-design that incorporated a “wider track” wheelbase as hard evidence that Ford was hiding something. But I see the suspension redesign as a logical progression of the platform nothing more.

In an effort to quantify my statements we owned a 1995 Ford Explorer and never had any problems. The only exception I could think of was the vehicles tendency for the rear end to fishtail on freeway onramps during wet or slippery road conditions – but “only” if you gave it too much gas.

Whether we’re talking about an old Suzuki Samurai or a new Chevy Tahoe, I think the thing that folks who own & drive SUVs as their daily transportation tend to forget or just flat out don’t care, is that this type of vehicle isn’t going to handle the same as a normal passenger car in an emergency. Fact is regardless of ride quality improvements, SUVs & even these new “crossover” vehicles are closer to trucks than they are to cars from a handling prospective.

Back to the Ford/Firestone lawsuits debacles: I feel that Firestone is most culpable in those tragic loses of life.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How long did Ford know the Explorer had a front suspension problem before the Firestone lawsuits publicized it--10 years?

[/ QUOTE ]
Steve,

Please don't take this personally but I have to disagree with this blanket statement. I understand & respect the fact that you may feel this way but I feel that it kind of misrepresents what actually happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/iagree.gif Sorry but I think the media also did a lot of poor reporting on the whole problem. Although I must have missed the whole front suspension part of the problem /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif, or at least not remember it. I thought it was a rear suspension problem and one thing that all the fatal incidents had in common was a rear blowout.

Car&Driver even ran a simulation (forcing a blowout) to try and re-create the conditons of the accident. They discovered that the vehicle was easily controlled in an emergency manuever if you knew how to do it correctly. As in ease of the gas and slowly apply the brakes. But if some one panicked they could make things worse. Which could be said in any emergency manuever really. They also discovered that too many car owners these days pay practically zero attention to the air pressure in their tires and that tires with low pressure but supporting a lot of weight could fail catastrophically, especially when they are on the drive axle. Then they were practically burned at the stake by the general media for suggesting that the rollovers were as much operator error as they were design flaws.

The sad thing that failed to materialize out of that whole situation was that the poor state of driver education in this country was not really talked about. Which was one of the things that Car&Driver was trying to do with their investigation, and trying to get public and government support increased for drivers ed.

I remember when anit-lock brakes were first introduced many people were confused and upset because they didn't help you stop any faster. They could not understand that they were not designed to stop you faster but to instead allow you to drive around accidents and remain in control during panic stops. Too bad the average American drivers education consists of just slam on the brakes and pray.

But I suppose thats just my opinion. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/square.gif

But as for Ford vs. Firestone, well, its all the same family when you get to the top.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 
That Car and Driver simulation was pretty bogus...scientifically irrelevant. Essentially, they tested something completely unrelated, which was tire deflation. In real-world accidents, the tread separated explosively, and often momentarily locking the wheel (tread wedging itself in the wheel well.) Cars also tended to be overloaded.

Part of the problem is how the Explorer was marketed. It wasn't marketed as an off-road vehicle -- it was marketed as family highway/suburban transport. In actuality, they often pictured Explorers in advertisements in situations that were specifically against specifications -- most importantly holding five people and luggage in an overloaded state.

Ford knew for years that the Explorer was more prone to rollover accidents than competitive vehicles, but chose not to reengineer the suspension due to cost and high sales. (If it sells broke, don't fix it.) It's the same as the current issue with cruise control switches that are always hot. Ford has known the parts have been fire hazzards, but chose not to recall until the NTSA ordered them to. (For those out there that are aware, most Ford SUVs have a switch/harness that is always connected to current, so every one has a possibility of starting a fire when it's sitting in a garage at night. Roughly 20 cars have spontaneously caught fire and taken houses/garages with 'em!)

This is not to say that GM is any better...and I will also agree that there is a lot of user error involved with accidents and SUV issues, but the auto industry is guilty of designing cheap products, marketing them one way, and then claiming user error when the products are used in situations that are reasonable in compared to how they are marketed and sold by improperly trained salespeople.
 
Solution: don't buy anything made after 1980 - lol!
 
Back
Top