Comments

• 	Ford's Bailout Plea Maccabees on 12/02/2008 at 7:11 PM
  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	"None of this is earth-shattering stuff--it's basically adapting existing technologies in smart ways." And they want $9,000,000,000 for this?  What if they actually had developed "earth-shattering stuff"?  Too little, too late, too bad. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Ford's Bailout Plea jmdrake on 12/03/2008 at 6:46 PM

    Posts: 2 Avg Rating:

    Those who have more than a flippant understanding of how industries make quality improvements over time horizons that are longer then football game are aware that there are basically two methods to bringing about large scale change: kaizen (incremental) and breakthrough (solution after next). This economic downturn is obviously a correction which will adversely effect the lives of many people. We should try to do it wisely as opposed to frivilous opposition to mistakes of the past. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Escape-good stuff DennisBuller on 12/02/2008 at 7:57 PM

  Posts: 19 Avg Rating:

  I have been pleasantly surprised at Ford's quality and innovation the last couple of years.       After decades of saying they would really compete with the Japanese, they actually are.   I think for the good of our economy and since they really are making good vehicles we should loan them the money.   The Escape Hybrid is a perfect example of what they are doing right. For the first time, ever, they are making a vehicle I really want (not counting the Cobra Mustang of course:).    Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: Escape-good stuff HEAVEN888 on 12/03/2008 at 5:14 AM
    Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	For your information, the nice Ford Escape is a Mazda Tribute with a Ford badge and skin.  That's why they seem to be better than other original Ford vehicles.  Ford also owns Mazda. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: Escape-good stuff gabrielg01 on 12/03/2008 at 9:10 AM

      Posts: 317 Avg Rating:

      ...Or, you could say that a Mazda Tribute is nothing but a rebadged Ford Escape. Since Mazda is owned by Ford, it is more fitting to say that all these cars are Fords, regardless of branding. As for quality, Ford and its subsidiaries did monopolize the best car crash results this year. Car safety is not everything, but it's indicative of serious engineering. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=6327555 Give credit, where credit is due. It's only fair! Rate this comment: (Reply)

• auto bailout devassocx on 12/03/2008 at 1:46 AM

  Posts: 29 Avg Rating:

  I'm a life long car guy but I'm against a bailout. These companies are not structured properly and are burdened by huge costs that a reorganization would correct. Those costs would be legacy retirement/healthcare and ongoing union labor. They are just not competitive with foreign car makers and that ultimately, loan or no loan, will bring them down. Better to do it now. I think their products are fine, its the other issues that must be addressed. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: auto bailout irreverent on 12/03/2008 at 10:21 PM

    Posts: 7 Avg Rating:

    Failure to innovate is only one problem for the automakers, the really big one is the albatross called the UAW chained to their necks. All three of the bigs have bloated contractual obligations that would drain any bail out. Besides we already have economical, fuel efficient, reliable cars with a great resale value that are made in the U.S., they are called Toyota and Honda. The big 3 fought better fuel requirements and had SUVs exempted from mpg rules by getting them classified as light truck work vehicles. Not to mention their fierce opposition to the EV1 which would have put them ahead of the game. Any economic model where you have to sell overpriced SUV gas guzzlers to stay afloat is a recipe for failure and a great disservice to the environment.With the Focus, Fusion and Escape Hybrid, Ford may be better positioned to survive then GM or Chrysler but not by much. Survival is about evolving not hounding the government to fix the rules to favor your vehicles and have the taxpayers fund the UAW's ridiculous benefits package. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: auto bailout schwinnparamount on 12/03/2008 at 11:54 PM

      Posts: 1 Avg Rating:

      Do you know what percentage of an American automobile's cost to produce labor $$$ represents? It's about 8% regardless of the automaker. So if we lower the wages of the average union member 10%, the cost of labor per car comes down to about 7.8% Is that math correct? If it is then we'd have to slash wages by at least 50% to have a very significant effect on the cost to produce an auto.  Surely there are folk who think it's fair to cut an "uneducated" factor line worker's wages to a mere $35.00 per hour... considering the fact that most of the workers have less education than the reader of this article. I wouldn't do that. Think about this for a second. Indeed, the actual job at the factory doesn't requre many brain cells but doing the job wrong can endanger you or your family. I know I don't want my Taurus suffering a mechanical failure at 65mph with my wife and children aboard. We need to rely on these folks to stay focused on the job of welding or screwing or whatever... Ya gotta pay for that sort of dedication to the task. Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Re: auto bailout irreverent on 12/06/2008 at 4:59 PM

        Posts: 7 Avg Rating:

        When benefits are figured in the average hourly wage for the UAW is $79 per hour. For a Japanese autoworker it is $49 per hour. That is why they have to make high priced SUVs to survive. While foreign automakers can thrive on producing smaller vehicles. Average labor time to assemble a compact is about the same as a larger vehicle such as an SUV, the parts are just bigger.  Furthermore the UAW has contract controls that prevent the big 3 from incorporating more automation in the manufacturing plants. The most efficient, automated and profitable Ford plant is in Brazil where there are no such restrictions on automation. With this economic crisis the company that has laid off the most workers is not GM, Ford or Chrysler, it is Toyota which is doing relatively well and is not begging for a taxpayer bail out. That is because it is virtually impossible to fire a UAW member. That means that in good times the companies are reluctant to hire more workers and to scale up production because they know when times are bad it will very difficult to trim the work force. No modern company can succeed with those restrictions. This almost dooms the bail out to failure. It would be better to start a new company from scratch or sell the pieces to other interested parties. BMW is interested in pontiac and perhaps Saturn which is really a repackaged Opel. Buicks are incredibly popular in China, so some of the CHinese companies may be interested in Buick. Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • Re: auto bailout mkogrady on 12/09/2008 at 9:09 PM

          Posts: 127 Avg Rating:

          I live in Detroit, and yes a lot of this stuff we're being hammered on are largely self inflicted. There are decades of bad business contracts signed between the companies and labor, as well as some serious flaws in our Trade Agreemments the Feds signed into law. The collapse of the home values and high gas prices were nails in the coffin of the Big three and now they need a crow bar to weasle out of the box they put themselves in. Jerry York (Kerkorian's shark) wanted GM to clean house a couple years ago and nobody listened. What I see lacking thus far (aside rfom the real meat and potatoes of the Big Three Plans and the Pelosi Party intentions) is what rules will be applied to other Auto Makers. Will Japananse manufactures be made to adapt  to the Economy standards the Domestic Makers will be (yes i know their cars already get better mileage - and will still get bettter mileage in the coming years). What about Porsche, Ferrari, Land Rover and the super premium cars. Will Rolls Royce need to develop a line up of cars so their CAFE standards meet our regulations? There are some remaining questions and many I hope will surface between now and March 2009 when the Big three go back to the well for more dough. If this whole mess is because we lack the common sense to use our resources more efficiently, and the Greenies have targeted the domestic car companies as their scapegoat, then this is a travesty to a lot of decent hard working people caught up in the whole mess. It's quite possible that a couple simple rules from the Federal Government to reduce emissions and fuel consumption could save tax payers a bunch of money from being set aside for the loans. How about the following two easy suggestions: Pelosi could have said they want a Federal Law that forces 100% of all working Americans to Car Pool so all those automobiles are filed to capacity and use fuel more efficiently. Just look at the cars next to you during your commute - how many have one occupant? Or better yet - have 100% of all working Americans who can Telecommute five days per week do so, and the rest Car Pool.  These are just two CHEAP means to accomplishing a radical reduction in fuel consumption and Green House Gas emmissions. It makse sense to be economical in the most efficient manner possible. Making new fuel efficient vehicles is needed, but it's only one part of the solution. As for the $15 billion car loans - what percent does each maker get? What Interest rate and period. It would be nice to calculate the amortization schedule and post it to Pelosi's personal website so she can show the taxpayers how much money we're making on the deal. It's getting late and I'm cranky - time to log off. Anyone care to chime in, I'll read up tomorrow. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Owning a Ford Without Owning the  Molecules NRGsave on 12/03/2008 at 2:46 AM

  Posts: 2

  What happened to the idea of selling a Ford as a cradle to cradle service: You buy the Ford and it changes as technological advances occur. Parts or the whole get replaced when necessary. Parts all break down into recyclable rather than downcyclable elements. A system of financing allows all people to buy one-replacing gas guzzlers with energy efficient vehicles. The present Mr. Ford always got overruled by the board and shareholders. Will they change their minds and get on with the new industrial revolution-start leading instead of digging their heels in? Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Inconvenient Truth Siphon on 12/05/2008 at 12:10 PM

  Posts: 112 Avg Rating:

  The inconvenient truth for Ford is that if they really want serious game changing fuel economy, they need lighter, smaller, very aerodynamic cars, and not based on internal combustion in the first place. What we need but don't want to hear is that we have to change the way we use energy in general. Just a 25% improvement won't cut it. We Americans don't want to change our behaviour, we think a bit more efficient engine will save us. Popular culture has to change. Regarding this transition, a crisis is a horrible thing to waste. Bailout is fine with me, under the condition that Ford moves to mostly electric vehicles (PHEV and/or EV) production and retrofits (for older cars). If they refuse to do this, then no bailout. If they fail the target the bailout will be retracted. A simple proposition. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Inconvenient Truth RogerB34 on 12/05/2008 at 9:33 PM

    Posts: 4 Avg Rating:

    No major auto maker will survive on light, aero, non IC, battery powered autos. Cost per unit is prohibitive in the handful that have been made. Toyota, with the most experience, uses NiMh batteries now and their next plug in and IC vehicle will likely be the same. They are testing Li-ion to determine if it is cost efficient. If Toyota does Li-ion then the technology has arrived but not without IC power. Toyota has a better shot at success with Li-ion batteries because their system is parallel and more efficient than Volt. Li-ion is very high risk. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Inconvenient Truth irreverent on 12/06/2008 at 5:21 PM

    Posts: 7 Avg Rating:

    Electric cars are not economically viable with gas prices below 2 dollars. In fact gas probably have to go to almost $5 a gallon to be realistic. They may be feel good socially viable but economically you are still in the red. If you do the math it is still cheaper to buy a corolla then a prius even figuring in mpg because the prius costs so much more. But the prius is an iconic car and people are buying them to be socially conscious. The greatest impact is from those giving up there gas guzzling cars and switching to a prius or a compact. Going from a corolla to prius does not have much impact. Battery technology has been squelched by the automakers for some time. GM had Ni MH and was putting it into the second edition of the EV but was so angry about being coerced into making zero emission vehicles that it sold the rights to the Ni MH to Texaco which had no desire to see battery powered cars. It was only with some arm twisting that they even agreed to license the technology out and they only allowed small batteries to made and combined to make larger ones. They have not permitted large scale Ni MH to be made. There is a French company making a large scale Ni MH that looks very impressive and durable but I am not sure what the cost is for those. One reason car companies and dealers do not like electric is because they make big bucs on service and total electrics don't need oil changes or radiator flushes plus a big list on other routine maintenance, like tune ups or timing belts. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Ford Plan mustang on 12/05/2008 at 7:24 PM
  Posts: 1	How about a 0-60 in 3 seconds electric Mustang to compete with Tesla? A 911 design would be great, but we're talking Ford owned icon. If Renault will roll out electric cars, why not Ford? Rate this comment: (Reply)