Is Ford Motor Company Falling a Step Behind Rival General Motors?

[oldshurst442]

10 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

Not their fault you say?

Yeah, I guess if I mismanage my checking account, don't save for the future, or seek other monies to pay for my expensive new car loan, it would not be my fault when a tow truck shows up in the middle of the night, and it's gone.  I could just blame the economy.

See how that holds up in court.

Again, the simple truth during hard times, is that one corporation took wiser steps,  

All the rest is noise and jelly.

What the phoque are you talking about?

FoMoCo mismanaged their cash flow, their business plans, their market, their production, their quality JUST as BADLY as the other 2 Michigan headquartered rivals...

THAT is why their cash flow ended 1 year BEFORE the other 2 rivals...

Wings....you like to re-write history....I guess its in your Greek blood to do so...but Homer you are not...nor Plato or Socrates....

You fool nobody.

Continue on with your revisionist history...

 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

3 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

What the phoque are you talking about?

FoMoCo mismanaged their cash flow, their business plans, their market, their production, their quality JUST as BADLY as the other 2 Michigan headquartered rivals...

THAT is why their cash flow ended 1 year BEFORE the other 2 rivals...

Wings....you like to re-write history....I guess its in your Greek blood to do so...but Homer you are not...nor Plato or Socrates....

You fool nobody.

Continue on with your revisionist history...

 

Here is the history.

Ford took wiser steps and did not phoque over their employees and investors.

 

You are not fooling anyone olds. I have had many debates with loud, dramatic, emotional and intelligent Greeks in the past.  They all try to skew and skirt a debate to fit their dramatics.  

[oldshurst442]

2 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

Here is the history.

Ford took wiser steps and did not phoque over their employees and investors.

 

You are not fooling anyone olds. I have had many debates with loud, dramatic, emotional and intelligent Greeks in the past.  They all try to skew and skirt a debate to fit their dramatics.  

You are the loud and dramatic story telling Greek...mixed in with some good ole American fast talkiing...

Im more of the wise old philosopher type, mixed in with some good old fashioned Canadian dont take no BS from nobody saying how it is attitude like Don Cherry...

Ford's "wiser" steps were of DESPERATION....

The rest is just lies and innuendo only politicians are known for...Ancient Greek politcians or modern day American or Canadian or Greek....

Hey, maybe you should run for President....your lies seem to be less stingy than the other two Presidential hopefuls... Id vote for you....

But then again, Id vote for you only because you are Greek and not for your merits.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Olds,

I like you too much to continue this argument.  

If you say there is no difference in how the companies handled their misfortunes and that there was no difference in what employees went through, then fine.  

Going to bed now.

[oldshurst442]

28 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

Olds,

I like you too much to continue this argument.  

If you say there is no difference in how the companies handled their misfortunes and that there was no difference in what employees went through, then fine.  

Going to bed now.

ΚΑΛΗΝΥΧΤΑ, Wings.

Translation for you non Greeks: Good Night, Wings.

[A Horse With No Name]

Why we are discussing what companies did eight or nine years ago to survive when the thread is about which company is gaining ground now is beyond me.  Yes, Ford has a certain amount of debt load but neither company was respo0nsible for the crash of 2008.

If anything, had the US been more sane from a political and banking standpoint, we might still have Pontiac and Mercury. 

In terms of where they are now, I have absolutely no love for modern Lincolns, but love most of the current Ford line up. If anything, GM is ahead in my mind because I feel they understand electric and hybrid car technology better and that will be the wave of the future, in spite of members here who need to change their Depends undergarments and come forward six decades into an understanding of the modern automotive market.

[Drew Dowdell]

16 hours ago, Wings4Life said:

Not their fault you say?

Yeah, I guess if I mismanage my checking account, don't save for the future, or seek other monies to pay for my expensive new car loan, it would not be my fault when a tow truck shows up in the middle of the night, and it's gone.  I could just blame the economy.

See how that holds up in court.

Again, the simple truth during hard times, is that one corporation took wiser steps,  

All the rest is noise and jelly.

You've got your timeline out of wack.  One corporation was in financial distress well before the financial crash hit, that's why they took the steps they did. 

Three ships were sailing along. The seas were calm and the skies were clear.

In spite of the fair weather, one ship had a leak and was taking on water at an alarming rate. Someone in the chain of command recognized this and ordered damage repair teams to address the issue. It would take a lot of work, a lot of reinforcing, and while the repairs were expected to be successful, it would be months or years before the damage was repaired. The other two ships, though decades since being overhauled, nonetheless were operating within acceptable parameters and picking up speed.

All three ships kept sailing.

A few months later, a massive hurricane entered the three ships' path. On the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale of 1 - 5, this Hurricane was an 8. 

All three ships took a massive beating in the storm and had their hulls ruptured and were beginning to sink.... two started sink far faster than the first ship was sinking back in the calm days.

All three ships sent out distress calls.  Due to the severity of the storm, none of the privately run maritime rescue operators were willing or able to come to the rescue.  Fortunately, the US Navy also heard the calls and heard the refusal of the private maritime operators to help, so the Navy dispatched a Carrier group.

Once the Navy arrived, they found two of the ships so badly damaged that they had to be tied to the Navy vessels to keep them afloat.  The Navy provided pumps and some relief crew to both of the badly damaged ships. For one ship, the Navy provided a new captain, a guy with years of experience on the USS American Telephone And Telegraph.  For the other, being in international waters, the Navy relied on its Nato Allies and an Italian Cruiser came to help.  Allowing the Italian Cruiser to help seems to have been a mistake as it had no rudder, no fuel, and only baloney for supplies.

 The third ship, while it was not sinking as fast as the others, it already had its damage control teams in place from the damage it has sustained during the time of the calm seas. And while it didn't need to be strapped to the side of a Navy vessel, nor did it need water pumps, the Captain did take on emergency rations from the Navy and specifically asked the Navy to stick around in case things got worse.   You see, the Navy was getting antsy; They didn't want to be in this storm any more than the three ships did.

As the Navy worked on the biggest of the three ships, they found that during the storm more than half of the supplies had been so badly damaged they could no longer be used. The Navy ordered the captain of that ship to toss them overboard. Of the eight, three of them promptly were tossed. The forth, when tossed overboard, hit a small exotic sailing craft and sunk it. The Navy, convinced that the only way to save the largest ship was to lighten its load, ordered it to continue to shed weight.

The captain of middle ship, the one with only moderate damage, was still nervous. He had good reason to be.  You see, even though these ships operated independently, they shared a lot of the same suppliers. If the largest ship and the smallest ship both sank, the companies that sell fuel, food, uniforms, etc to all three would all probably go out of business.  If that happened, even if only the middle ship survived the storm, where would it then be able to buy its supplies once the storm had cleared?  

In the end, the US Navy stabilized the largest ship. The rip in the hull has been repaired better and lighter than new, the water is pumped out, the fuel has been refilled, and it is riding high and steaming forward again. The Italian Cruiser's Captain took over operations of the smallest ship, ate its crew, and is still in the process of sending all of the USDA Grade A Beef back to his Cruiser while loading the smallest ship up with baloney.  What crew is left on the smallest ship is hoping the Captain takes a lifeboat soon and takes his baloney with him because it has really stunk up the place.

The third ship though, the one that didn't get the same level of assistance from the Navy and preferring to try and go it alone still has issues.  Though the hull has been repaired, without the Navy's pumps it is still heavy and low in the water. The crew is still trying to bail the water out of the lower deck by hand and it is slow work. All of the extra reinforcement to the hull makes the ship slow to change speed, slow to react to rudder changes, and really degrades the fuel economy of the ship. 

Some say it is noble that the middle ship didn't use the Navy's pumps or repair teams. Some say it was smart of the captain to start repairs before the storm ever hit... but it was more self preservation on his part before the storm ever even appeared... and by declining assistance he is still weighted down by stuff from before the storm and a number of stale supplies.

[David]

 You ROCK  Drew, that was a perfect story relating the realities of the D3!

Drew for President!

 

[A Horse With No Name]

53 minutes ago, dfelt said:

 You ROCK  Drew, that was a perfect story relating the realities of the D3!

Drew for President!

 

Or at least for dad...I could see him making up some fantastic bed time stories!

[Drew Dowdell]

9 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Or at least for dad...I could see him making up some fantastic bed time stories!

Oh the irony...since that is probably never going to happen

[A Horse With No Name]

21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Oh the irony...since that is probably never going to happen

I know....but to me it is a sad thing personally, because I do think you would make a fantastic father.

If nothing else, the world needs more people that can think critically, and I cannot imagine you and Albert raising children that did not know how to think rationally.

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, A Horse With No Name said:

I know....but to me it is a sad thing personally, because I do think you would make a fantastic father.

If nothing else, the world needs more people that can think critically, and I cannot imagine you and Albert raising children that did not know how to think rationally.

Thank you. That means a lot. 

[A Horse With No Name]

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Thank you. That means a lot. 

Not a problem....!

[David]

5 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I know....but to me it is a sad thing personally, because I do think you would make a fantastic father.

If nothing else, the world needs more people that can think critically, and I cannot imagine you and Albert raising children that did not know how to think rationally.

Cannot agree with this statement more!

Lots of Kids in the world that can be adopted and would love to have Drew as a Dad.

[A Horse With No Name]

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

Cannot agree with this statement more!

Lots of Kids in the world that can be adopted and would love to have Drew as a Dad.

In the mean time, he can deal with the children here when they throw sand in the sandbox....!

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

In the mean time, he can deal with the children here when they throw sand in the sandbox....!

My kids would never behave as badly as some of the middle-aged children here do.

[Drew Dowdell]

... *sigh*... and I just got rid of my dad bod...

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You've got your timeline out of wack.  One corporation was in financial distress well before the financial crash hit, that's why they took the steps they did. 

Three ships were sailing along. The seas were calm and the skies were clear.

In spite of the fair weather, one ship had a leak and was taking on water at an alarming rate. Someone in the chain of command recognized this and ordered damage repair teams to address the issue. It would take a lot of work, a lot of reinforcing, and while the repairs were expected to be successful, it would be months or years before the damage was repaired. The other two ships, though decades since being overhauled, nonetheless were operating within acceptable parameters and picking up speed.

All three ships kept sailing.

A few months later, a massive hurricane entered the three ships' path. On the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale of 1 - 5, this Hurricane was an 8. 

All three ships took a massive beating in the storm and had their hulls ruptured and were beginning to sink.... two started sink far faster than the first ship was sinking back in the calm days.

All three ships sent out distress calls.  Due to the severity of the storm, none of the privately run maritime rescue operators were willing or able to come to the rescue.  Fortunately, the US Navy also heard the calls and heard the refusal of the private maritime operators to help, so the Navy dispatched a Carrier group.

Once the Navy arrived, they found two of the ships so badly damaged that they had to be tied to the Navy vessels to keep them afloat.  The Navy provided pumps and some relief crew to both of the badly damaged ships. For one ship, the Navy provided a new captain, a guy with years of experience on the USS American Telephone And Telegraph.  For the other, being in international waters, the Navy relied on its Nato Allies and an Italian Cruiser came to help.  Allowing the Italian Cruiser to help seems to have been a mistake as it had no rudder, no fuel, and only baloney for supplies.

 The third ship, while it was not sinking as fast as the others, it already had its damage control teams in place from the damage it has sustained during the time of the calm seas. And while it didn't need to be strapped to the side of a Navy vessel, nor did it need water pumps, the Captain did take on emergency rations from the Navy and specifically asked the Navy to stick around in case things got worse.   You see, the Navy was getting antsy; They didn't want to be in this storm any more than the three ships did.

As the Navy worked on the biggest of the three ships, they found that during the storm more than half of the supplies had been so badly damaged they could no longer be used. The Navy ordered the captain of that ship to toss them overboard. Of the eight, three of them promptly were tossed. The forth, when tossed overboard, hit a small exotic sailing craft and sunk it. The Navy, convinced that the only way to save the largest ship was to lighten its load, ordered it to continue to shed weight.

The captain of middle ship, the one with only moderate damage, was still nervous. He had good reason to be.  You see, even though these ships operated independently, they shared a lot of the same suppliers. If the largest ship and the smallest ship both sank, the companies that sell fuel, food, uniforms, etc to all three would all probably go out of business.  If that happened, even if only the middle ship survived the storm, where would it then be able to buy its supplies once the storm had cleared?  

In the end, the US Navy stabilized the largest ship. The rip in the hull has been repaired better and lighter than new, the water is pumped out, the fuel has been refilled, and it is riding high and steaming forward again. The Italian Cruiser's Captain took over operations of the smallest ship, ate its crew, and is still in the process of sending all of the USDA Grade A Beef back to his Cruiser while loading the smallest ship up with baloney.  What crew is left on the smallest ship is hoping the Captain takes a lifeboat soon and takes his baloney with him because it has really stunk up the place.

The third ship though, the one that didn't get the same level of assistance from the Navy and preferring to try and go it alone still has issues.  Though the hull has been repaired, without the Navy's pumps, it is still heavy and low in the water. It is still trying to bail the water out of the lower deck by hand and it is slow work. All of the extra reinforcement to the hull makes the ship slow to change speed, slow to react to rudder changes, and really degrades the fuel economy of the ship. 

Some say it is noble that the middle ship didn't use the Navy's pumps or repair teams. Some say it was smart of the captain to start repairs before the storm ever hit... but it was more self preservation on his part before the storm ever even appeared... and by declining assistance he is still weighted down by stuff from before the storm and a number of stale supplies.

Cute story, but the fact is, one captain anticipated a potential storm that throw them off course, and prepared for it.  The other two did not, and it cost them dearly.

 

You are blaming the storm, I am praising the captain who looked for it.

[Drew Dowdell]

10 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

Cute story, but the fact is, one captain anticipated a potential storm that throw them off course, and prepared for it.  The other two did not, and it cost them dearly.

You are blaming the storm, I am praising the captain who looked for it.

 

Actually, I'm citing the condition of the ship prior to the storm.  It is an irony that had Ford been in better shape before the collapse, they wouldn't have taken out the mortgages they did ahead of time, and all three would have gotten full bailouts.  It's only due to how bad off they were before hand that they survived.

I'll give credit where it is due; The moves Ford made were absolutely the right ones to make given their situation, storm or no storm. 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Struggling Ford Motor Co., which posted a record $12.7 billion net loss in 2006

DETROIT, March 14 -- General Motors Corp. today posted net income for 2006, excluding special items, of $2.2 billion

By 2007, GMAC was imploding as the housing market went south, but GM's car business was up $7 billion in revenue. 

In contrast, in 2007, Ford lost $5 billion building cars, but reduced to a $2.7 billion loss due to profits from their financial arm * PDF Warning

By 2008, the full storm was on them both. 

Daimler-Chrysler as a whole had a net profit of $7.2 billion in 2006, but Chrysler division took a $1.2 billion loss.  In 2007, Daimler split off Chrysler, so it's harder to put a finger on who earned what that year.. but I think we can all agree that Chrysler was pretty damaged by that point. 

[David]

52 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

In the mean time, he can deal with the children here when they throw sand in the sandbox....!

So true,

I have never had kids of my own yet biology does not make a dad. I married an amazing woman who left her arranged marriage when Amy was 8, Alex was 4 and I raised them as my own. They are now 33 & 29, both college educated and successful. Amy works for Tommy Bahama and Alex works for a High Tech startup.

I truly believe, good parents can be anyone that cares to raise productive individuals who can support and drive themselves to success.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

26 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Actually, I'm citing the condition of the ship prior to the storm.  It is an irony that had Ford been in better shape before the collapse, they wouldn't have taken out the mortgages they did ahead of time, and all three would have gotten full bailouts.  It's only due to how bad off they were before hand that they survived.

I'll give credit where it is due; The moves Ford made were absolutely the right ones to make given their situation, storm or no storm. 

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Struggling Ford Motor Co., which posted a record $12.7 billion net loss in 2006

DETROIT, March 14 -- General Motors Corp. today posted net income for 2006, excluding special items, of $2.2 billion

By 2007, GMAC was imploding as the housing market went south, but GM's car business was up $7 billion in revenue. 

In contrast, in 2007, Ford lost $5 billion building cars, but reduced to a $2.7 billion loss due to profits from their financial arm * PDF Warning

By 2008, the full storm was on them both. 

Daimler-Chrysler as a whole had a net profit of $7.2 billion in 2006, but Chrysler division took a $1.2 billion loss.  In 2007, Daimler split off Chrysler, so it's harder to put a finger on who earned what that year.. but I think we can all agree that Chrysler was pretty damaged by that point. 

You are suggesting pure luck is what Ford had, based on timing, and that at no time did strategy and smart business sense come into play.

So wrong you are. I recall the meetings vividly. I recall the discussions about how they are preparing to secure their new revitalization plan AND a potentially souring economy, by doubling down on the low interest rates to secure that whole plan, JUST IN CASE.

They had insight.

Others did not.

Spin it into any analogy you like, but that is what I LIVED THROUGH.

[oldshurst442]

21 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

You are suggesting pure luck is what Ford had, based on timing, and that at no time did strategy and smart business sense come into play.

So wrong you are. I recall the meetings vividly. I recall the discussions about how they are preparing to secure their new revitalization plan AND a potentially souring economy, by doubling down on the low interest rates to secure that whole plan, JUST IN CASE.

They had insight.

Others did not.

Spin it into any analogy you like, but that is what I LIVED THROUGH.

Ummmmm...NO!!!

That is what is called sugar coating the desperation...

That what you have described is what Disney movies are all about...

The nice come back from behind victory....

The bad guy wears a black hat and the good guy wears a white hat and through all kinds of turmoil saves the damsel in distress and saves the day and lives to fight another day.

 

The nice love story...where the hero lives happily ever after.

However, the negatives are all buried in the sand...

In makes for a nicer story....why bother we all that pesky truth...which was desperation for Ford...

 

Ford had hindsight to mortgage the Blue Oval and the Mustang trademark?

That they had to hire appraisers to see how much those identities were worth....THAT was the hindsight? For a rainy day? And just in case it down poured on Ford's parade, and Ford wouldn't be able to make a payment on that type of mortgage, Ford would cease to own its own Blue Oval logo?

Dude...THAT was a big effin risk to take...

And...George W. Bush was already softening the public for a bailout at the time...because those talks were happening waaaay before the shyte hit the fan...

Everyone knew the woes of the Detroit 3....very early on...

That is why the Premier Automotive Group began to be dismantled under Mullaly.  Aston Martin was sold, to a consortium of investors, headed by David Richards in 2007.^[4] In September 2006, the defunct Rover brand was secured from BMW by Ford to protect the Land Rover brand.^[5] In March 2008, Ford sold Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata Motors of India. In 2010, Ford sold Volvo Cars, the last PAG brand, to the parent of Chinese carmaker Geely for $1.8 billion.

 

My My...Wings...How we forget the desperation times...

 

A mere 5-7 years before...PAG was formed to a tune of 17 billion or something like that...

 

Burn through cash the D3 were doing...and Ford was desperate and that is why the Mustang trademark and Blue Oval logo ceased to be owned by Ford for a little while....NOT because of hindsight as you put it...but by desperation...

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by oldshurst442

[Drew Dowdell]

24 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

You are suggesting pure luck is what Ford had, based on timing, and that at no time did strategy and smart business sense come into play.

So wrong you are. I recall the meetings vividly. I recall the discussions about how they are preparing to secure their new revitalization plan AND a potentially souring economy, by doubling down on the low interest rates to secure that whole plan, JUST IN CASE.

They had insight.

Others did not.

Spin it into any analogy you like, but that is what I LIVED THROUGH.

No, I'm not suggesting it was pure luck.  I'm suggesting that Ford was already had a huge gash in the hull before the crap hit the fan.  Ford lost more in 2006 than they had made in the 3 prior years combined (2005 : $2.0B, 2004 : $3.5b, 2003 : $3.5b). The net result was that while 3 of the 4 years of the range 2003 - 2006 were profitable, the net total was a loss of $3.7b.  2002 was a net loss of $1b as well. In 2007 they increased their loss record from $12.7 billion to $14.7 billion, losing $11b just building cars.  In 2008 they lost another $5.0 billion building cars, reducing the loss to $2.7 billion with financial services. It wasn't until 2009 that they swung around to profit again and haven't had a loss year since. 

Even in a good economy, had Ford not acted they would have gone under. 

GM's albatross was largely GMAC. Ford Credit largely only financed vehicle sales where GMAC financed houses and even things like appliance purchases.  The difference being that before the crash, GM was making money building cars and it was the housing market that torpedoed them. Ford was losing money making cars with not enough results from Ford Credit to make up the difference. 

Chrysler had been a basket case ever since the Germans got ahold of them, but at least they had the German's balance sheet to lean on during that time.  Chrysler actually was doing okay before that merger. 

[ccap41]

Or... Maybe Ford foresaw a $h! storm brewing and jumped the gun getting cash..?

Edited October 27, 2016 by ccap41

[Drew Dowdell]

3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Or... Maybe Ford foresaw a $h! storm brewing and jumped the gun getting cash..

Only one of their own making.  At the time they were doing this, it was largely a self preservation project.  It was announced in November 2006, well before there were signs of doom for the economy as a whole. 

Quote

 

Although other auto companies have put up manufacturing equipment and other types of collateral over the years to secure loan, Ford has never done so before. For many decades, its credit was so good that it could easily borrow without pledging assets.

By doing so now, analysts said, Ford is putting its independence at risk. If management fails in its latest attempt to make the ailing company profitable again, Ford may be left with little choice but to find a buyer or merger partner or file for bankruptcy protection.

 

and

Quote

Moody’s Investors Service lowered its rating of Ford’s senior unsecured debt to Caa1, seven levels below investment grade, from B3, saying that the asset pledges would make it more difficult for unsecured lenders to get their money back if the company defaults. Still, Moody’s analysts saw logic in the plan from the company’s perspective.

By November of 2006, Ford had to have seen the writing on their own wall. You don't lose $12 billion in two months at the end of the year. By the time they had gotten to November, they had already burned through all of the 3 prior year's profits and then some. At this point, the possibility of a recession was only being referred to as "If", and protecting themselves from that potential "if" was a wise choice... but lets be realistic, they had no choice.  Even in a good economy, they couldn't continue losing $12b a year much longer. 

Note:

Quote

 

Shelly Lombard, senior high-yield analyst with Gimme Credit, a corporate-bond research service in New York, said the financing “makes sense,” given that Ford is expected to burn through $5 billion of its cash reserves this year.

“At that kind of run rate,” Ms. Lombard wrote in a research note this morning, “the company would have had only a few more years of liquidity, especially since it insists that it won’t sell Ford Motor Credit.” The company’s stake in the credit arm is one of the assets pledged in the financing deal.

 

At the time of the financing, if they hadn't gotten the loans, they would have run out of cash in two years no matter what the economy did.

 

[A Horse With No Name]

Can we get back to where we are now in terms of product and off the discussion of the past?

From a product standpoint, what is each company doing right and wrong in everyones opinion?

[David]

Ford is right to push forward with Aluminum, but they need to see how GM has used high strength steel to reduce weight. The aluminum bed and panels only got Ford to where GM already was with using high strength steel.

Ignoring FCA American Divisions, GM and FORD both have plenty of potential in their trucks, GM is ahead with cars and SUVs is my personal opinion. EV auto's also and I have to think this is due to Ford Debt in comparison to GM.

GM needs to keep pushing new tech and moving towards Hybrid everything, EV's at least one in each of the 5 product lines.

Ford needs to update their cars, get current with a better EV and seriously change Lincoln.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

 

Drew,

I don’t care if they lost $23B like GM did in the 90’s. Heck, GM was limping along too, and lost $8.6B the previous year.  Ford still had the insight to borrow more than they needed to weather the coming storm.  And GM did not.  Just how it is.

[Drew Dowdell]

27 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Can we get back to where we are now in terms of product and off the discussion of the past?

From a product standpoint, what is each company doing right and wrong in everyones opinion?

I think Lincoln is still seriously behind.  The Continental is a step in the right direction, but the MKZ isn't enough of an update to keep people happy and gain lots of conquest sales.  Furthermore, as much as the bunch of us who frequent automotive websites may like the 3.0TT it might be a bit too much for buyers of this sort of car. As mundane as it is, the MKZ really does need a basic (in today's terms), naturally aspirated V6 to properly challenge the ES. Lincoln is not going to peel those buyers out of their Lexii if they don't offer them something they want.

The MKX and MKC are good attempts and reflect that in their sales.  The new Navigator can't get here fast enough. 

On cars, Ford is falling behind fast.  The Focus feels very tired at this point, only the Sentra comes to mind as tireder.  The updates to the Fusion are nice, but few non-car people will even notice them.  I do think the Fiesta is among the best in its class.  Taurus and C-Max... you're still here?

 Explorer is fantastic, it's the king of the hill and deserves to be, the only reason someone should consider a Grand Cherokee or Durango over an Explorer is if they need towing capacity or off road capability beyond what the Explorer can do... if you're just doing soccer mom/dad stuff, get the Explorer.  The Edge is equally as good, but underappreciated by the press, can be a little pricey, but I'd still pick it over a Murano. The release of the new CR-V and Equinox will make the newly refreshed Escape feel very old very fast. 

F-150, not much needs to be said. It's the King for a reason. I drove the '17 Superduty and it deserves every award it has and will win. Ranger is still too far away as is Bronco. Transit and Transit Connect, not my cup of tea, but the market has spoken. 

 

6 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

 

 

Drew,

 

I don’t care if they lost $23B like GM did in the 90’s. Heck, GM was limping along too, and lost $8.6B the previous year.  Ford still had the insight to borrow more than they needed to weather the coming storm.  And GM did not.  Just how it is.

 

Ford had the insight to weather their own storm. People were already talking about Ford being forced to merge or go through bankruptcy. There was no insight into a future storm in 2006, certainly not at the level of what happened. 

 GM had their issues, but it wasn't with building cars at that point, it was GMAC.  No one was talking about a GM bankruptcy in 2006. Warning shots to the economy didn't start for another 7 - 8 months.

[Cmicasa the Great]

Like always Wings chooses to pick and choose his knowledge even when history and documentation prove him wrong.. or in more appropriate terms.. to be a an idiot.

Ford HAD to go to to the banks early on because they were in every way getting ready to do exactly what GM did later. A DOE loan also helped Ford get thru the calamity that came.. MOFOs were so broke they had to sell their name...

GM, with Rick Wagoner and Co, ironically decided to actually weather the storm, and were actually seen as possibly pulling thru said storm until the recession hit.. and hit hard in 2008.. and everything when busto.. After that.. the BK was inevitable.. altho I personally cried for it as far back as 2006 to rid themselves of the UAW BULLSHIT that they were into..

 

But like Horsie said.. why the hell are we arguing almost decade old shit.. when financials show that currently.. Mary vs Mark.. the woman, as I often like.. is ON TOP. Ford's over reliance on Fleet (a few months in the almost 40% range ) is effing its financials up. It will in turn eventually eff up buyer's resale as well. GM decided to kill many fleet sales and push retail.. resulting in the highest ATPS in the industry, and the often criticized Cadillac. . led by the Escalade, CTS and new CT6, being the #1 or #2 highest ATP winner in the land

[Drew Dowdell]

Compared to GM:

GM has a luxury division that is mentioned in all seriousness with the likes of the best from Germany. There is no shame in picking a CTS-V over an M5, and buyers of Escalades won't lay awake at night wondering if they should have gone with a GLS instead.  Not the biggest fan of Cadillac's President, but we've also seen little of his handiwork yet.  The XT5 is capable, but I think the MKX does more things better (there are pluses and minuses to both on the interior).  Cadillac really needs more engine choice in the XT5. I haven't driven the Continental yet to compare, but CT6 is bad-ass. It's a big car but you can make it dance like a ballerina.  The Continental is most often mentioned with... the Koreans?  I think that is unfair to the Continental and gives the Koreans too much credit... but it still isn't being compared to an E-Class or S-Class at this point.

On trucks - I admit that I favor the GM full-sizers (Sierra in particular) over the F-150 in looks, but there are a few areas on the GMs I don't like. The configuration options put you into baffling choices that you shouldn't have to make.... why can't I have Z71 AND the enhanced towing package??.  There are also a few tech things missing that I would want to see on the GMs fullsizers. Where is Android Auto? Where is lane keep assist (not just alert)?  The mid-size trucks are great for a segment that was starved of new product for years, however they really need to improve on the interiors here. Toyota is not standing still.  GM, you're still building the old Express?  You got caught with your pants down on the City Express's segment, I hope you have something lined up to replace it.  The irony is they probably can't bring over the Opel Combo Kastenwagen because it is a sister vehicle to the Fiat/Ram Promaster City and FCA won't allow it.

On SUVs - The Trax and Encore are doing well and the updates are nice, but somehow I feel like there should have been more to it.  I am soooooo glad that the current 'Nox and Terrain are finally being replaced. It's about damn time.... I always avoided those two at the rental counter.  As far as packaging, they were fine, but the interiors were so out of date.  Hated the refreshed 'Nox face and the newest one fixes that.   The Lambdas are finally being replaced and we'll see more of that soon.  I drove an Acadia Denali last week and I was just "meh". For that amount of money a Grand Cherokee or Explorer would be more satisfying. Don't get me wrong, it seems to be done well... but it's not something I would steer someone towards unless they were particularly attracted to the looks. I won't bother on the other Lambdas since they're on their way out, good while they lasted.  The Suburban and Yukon are kings of their segment for good reason, but a little interior and exterior nip/tuck is probably in order.

On cars - For the first time since ... well all of my lifetime... Chevrolet has a top-shelf lineup from top to bottom. SS, Impala, Camaro, Malibu, Cruze, Volt, Bolt, Sonic, Spark.... I can recommend any of those to someone shopping in the respective classes without hesitation. The new Cruze should take off. The Lacrosse is a good iterative improvement over the prior car, but won't woo that many new Buick buyers, needs another upper engine option.  Regal is tired, Cascada was old before it was birthed, Verano is dead. Verano being dead I see as a problem... we in the US should absolutely have gotten the new Opel Astra.  Make it only in premium trims, the small FWD lux segment is heating up, why abandon ship now?  At Cadillac, I really enjoy the CTS and CT6.  The ATS is a favorite too, but really Cadillac, we've been harping on that instrument cluster since the beginning of the car, you've done at least one refresh including an all new CUE system... you couldn't fix the speedo?

On engines - I remain unconvinced at the push towards smaller displacements with turbo and direct injection. The whole industry seems to be heading that way so I may not have much choice. However, in this regard, Ford as a whole is doing a better job at it than GM, particularly in 4-cylinders.  Where GM has Turbo V6es, they are pretty equal to Fords of a similar displacement, but availability in the model lineups is still too sparse to be of much use.  I'll still pick a GM V8 over a Ford Ecoboost V6 wherever the option affords me. 

On Transmissions - GM's 8-speed RWD is fantastic, it really should be the bar for the industry at the moment. I haven't driven a Ford 10-speed yet to compare. I'm not a fan of the transmission programming GM is doing lately.  Normal is far too conservative and sport is far too aggressive.... can't we have a goldilocks setting where the car reacts like we expect it to when we press the pedal? There is just too much nanny in the programming.  Ford's 6-speeds feel quaint. They're capable and get the job done, but they are outclassed by the 8-speeds and 9-speeds out there from many other brands. 

[Cmicasa the Great]

I agree on some points Drew, but the Tranny comment is imo set that way to be the Goldilocks scenario. A true enthusiast will make the changes on his own via the very easy to use tuners now avail. Personally I have programmed my Yukon and my Impala's 6 speeds (I missed out on the 8speed in Yukon) and have actually left the CTS-V alone.. as the tuning in Touring is quite nice and docile while the Sport and Track mode programming is exactly the way I like.. and if I don't.. "M" to the rescue and I start shifting my own. The Vette being a Stick.. the rowing results are all mine

[A Horse With No Name]

Agree especially on the quality of the current Chevrolet line up.

2 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I agree on some points Drew, but the Tranny comment is imo set that way to be the Goldilocks scenario. A true enthusiast will make the changes on his own via the very easy to use tuners now avail. Personally I have programmed my Yukon and my Impala's 6 speeds (I missed out on the 8speed in Yukon) and have actually left the CTS-V alone.. as the tuning in Touring is quite nice and docile while the Sport and Track mode programming is exactly the way I like.. and if I don't.. "M" to the rescue and I start shifting my own. The Vette being a Stick.. the rowing results are all mine

I really like the Impala programming just the way it is.

[Cmicasa the Great]

3 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Agree especially on the quality of the current Chevrolet line up.

I really like the Impala programming just the way it is.

It was fine.. but I tuned it simply because I was curious to see what more I could extract. I was pleasantly surprised. The Yukon tho.. that needed to be tinkered with simply because GM loves to E-Throttle shit and tune their trannies for take off geared fuel economy... not to mention I had to kill Active Fuel Management. Hate that shit 

[Drew Dowdell]

My issue is primarily with the FWD 6-speeds and 8-speeds. They are far too reluctant to kick down when need be.

In normal mode in suburban driving, press the pedal.. "<bog> <bog> <bog> Oh you wanted to go? <downshift>".

In sport mode, you get the downshift you want when you want it, but then it holds the gear too long when you've backed off. 

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

I recognize that at a GM favorite site, bringing up old wounds gets people amped up. I will drop the subject, as there are plenty of good reads out there if someone wanted to know the facts, rather than forum-ized versions of facts.

 

But, I will leave you all with this excellent read.  This guy is one of several who predicted GM's future, including BK, well before it happened.  It is quite telling.  And if memory serves, GM execs clearly never thought or expected the worst.

 

http://www.dailywealth.com/824/A-Letter-from-General-Motors-Chairman

[A Horse With No Name]

27 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

It was fine.. but I tuned it simply because I was curious to see what more I could extract. I was pleasantly surprised. The Yukon tho.. that needed to be tinkered with simply because GM loves to E-Throttle shit and tune their trannies for take off geared fuel economy... not to mention I had to kill Active Fuel Management. Hate that shit 

Would love to be closer to take that Impala for a spin.  Believe it or not it is actually one of my favorite GM cars. It is one thing to build an 80 grand Cadillac, it is another to build a car as class leading as the Impala and sell it for thirty grand!

17 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

I recognize that at a GM favorite site, bringing up old wounds gets people amped up. I will drop the subject, as there are plenty of good reads out there if someone wanted to know the facts, rather than forum-ized versions of facts.

 

But, I will leave you all with this excellent read.  This guy is one of several who predicted GM's future, including BK, well before it happened.  It is quite telling.  And if memory serves, GM execs clearly never thought or expected the worst.

 

http://www.dailywealth.com/824/A-Letter-from-General-Motors-Chairman

I would be more interested in your actual thinking about what you do and do not like about the current line up of cars from both GM and Ford.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

 

I would be more interested in your actual thinking about what you do and do not like about the current line up of cars from both GM and Ford.

Then go back to page one and read them.

[Drew Dowdell]

On 10/13/2016 at 8:55 PM, El Kabong said:

So... that justifies losing 25hp?

okie dokie

I realize this is an old post... but yes it could.  From the CTS V-Sport to the XTS V-Sport the engine loses 10 horsepower and whopping 34 lb-ft of torque just by turning the engine sideways.  The STS gained 25 horsepower going from a side winder to longitudinal. 

[A Horse With No Name]

5 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Like always Wings chooses to pick and choose his knowledge even when history and documentation prove him wrong.. or in more appropriate terms.. to be a an idiot.

Ford HAD to go to to the banks early on because they were in every way getting ready to do exactly what GM did later. A DOE loan also helped Ford get thru the calamity that came.. MOFOs were so broke they had to sell their name...

GM, with Rick Wagoner and Co, ironically decided to actually weather the storm, and were actually seen as possibly pulling thru said storm until the recession hit.. and hit hard in 2008.. and everything when busto.. After that.. the BK was inevitable.. altho I personally cried for it as far back as 2006 to rid themselves of the UAW BULLSHIT that they were into..

 

But like Horsie said.. why the hell are we arguing almost decade old shit.. when financials show that currently.. Mary vs Mark.. the woman, as I often like.. is ON TOP. Ford's over reliance on Fleet (a few months in the almost 40% range ) is effing its financials up. It will in turn eventually eff up buyer's resale as well. GM decided to kill many fleet sales and push retail.. resulting in the highest ATPS in the industry, and the often criticized Cadillac. . led by the Escalade, CTS and new CT6, being the #1 or #2 highest ATP winner in the land

Ford resale is really already messed up.  I am not able to afford a Corvette or a CTS V, I am looking at cheaper performance cars.  The Focus ST and Fiesta ST are both neat cars but have hideous depreciation, even compared to something like the VW GTI. The GTI of course being tainted by the falling reputation of VW.

I think one also needs to look at how utterly bland most of the Ford lineup was in the 2006-2008 era compared to GM.  There was a very legitimate reason they were having a problem turning a profit by putting money to metal.

And while it is fun to talk about various cars in the dream car garage threads in the Lounge, I think I have decided that I will not be buying a Ford motor company product for my next car, or maybe ever. This thread has reminded me in a really negative wort of way of the arrogance of Ford in acting superior in not taking the bail out money. A few years ago I changed my on screen name from 66 Stang to a Horse with No Name because I did not want to associate myself with Ford because of their arrogant attitude.

Feeling really glad at the moment that I didn't pull the trigger on a new Focus ST.  Almost bought one a couple of years ago when I bought my TDI, and almost ordered one when it looked like the buy back was a sure thing.

I think Cadillac also deserves enormous credit for designs that are really modern and edgy.  There is a confidence to the design language that no other luxury car maker can match. 

[oldshurst442]

24 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Ford resale is really already messed up.  I am not able to afford a Corvette or a CTS V, I am looking at cheaper performance cars.  The Focus ST and Fiesta ST are both neat cars but have hideous depreciation, even compared to something like the VW GTI. The GTI of course being tainted by the falling reputation of VW.

I think one also needs to look at how utterly bland most of the Ford lineup was in the 2006-2008 era compared to GM.  There was a very legitimate reason they were having a problem turning a profit by putting money to metal.

And while it is fun to talk about various cars in the dream car garage threads in the Lounge, I think I have decided that I will not be buying a Ford motor company product for my next car, or maybe ever. This thread has reminded me in a really negative wort of way of the arrogance of Ford in acting superior in not taking the bail out money. A few years ago I changed my on screen name from 66 Stang to a Horse with No Name because I did not want to associate myself with Ford because of their arrogant attitude.

Feeling really glad at the moment that I didn't pull the trigger on a new Focus ST.  Almost bought one a couple of years ago when I bought my TDI, and almost ordered one when it looked like the buy back was a sure thing.

The funny thing about that...I made a Ford purchase in 2013 buying a Fusion DESPITE me being pissed at that lying arrogance with those dumb commercials.

And the bailout money had no influence on me either...

I was FOR the bailouts as I was for FoMoCo surviving their route taken...

 

I take it many Americans were pissed at the government interventions but it baffles me how these same Americans are pissed at GM and Chryco for the bailout money yet they dont cry foul when the government subsidizes foreign car makers to build their factories in the USA...

Or when NASA lets Toyota use the Space Shuttle as a HUGE billboard commercial...

Or worse...I dont see any American, including @Wings4Life bitch at these billionaire pro-sports team owners threaten to leave town unless the city in question builds them a new arena of some sorts....

 

OK back to Ford...

Ill keep this short and sweet.

I just AMAZED how Ford and GM went from interior zeros from the 1980s-2010s to interior heros from 2010-2016. A short time span where GM and Ford are now industry leaders, or close to it, in interior design, quality and execution.

Much still to improve...but very impressive non-the-less...for both companies.

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by oldshurst442

[A Horse With No Name]

3 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

The funny thing about that...I made a Ford purchase in 2013 buying a Fusion DESPITE me being pissed at that lying arrogance with those dumb commercials.

And the bailout money had no influence on me either...

I was FOR the bailouts as I was for FoMoCo surviving their route taken...

 

I take it many Americans were pissed at the government interventions but it baffles me how these same Americans are pissed at GM and Chryco for the bailout money yet they dont cry foul when the government subsidizes foreign car makers to build their factories in the USA...

Or when NASA lets Toyota use the Space Shuttle as a HUGE billboard commercial...

Or worse...I dont see any American, including @Wings4Life bitch at these billionaire pro-sports team owners threaten to leave town unless the city in question builds them a new arena of some sorts....

 

OK back to Ford...

Ill keep this short and sweet.

I just AMAZED how Ford and GM went from interior zeros from the 1980s-2010s to interior heros from 2010-2016. A short time span where GM and Ford are now industry leaders, or close to it, in interior design, quality and execution.

Much still to improve...but very impressive non-the-less...for both companies.

 

And that is the gods honest truth.  Both companies are thriving and have some cool designs.

But remembering how pissed I was at Ford for those commercials has really honestly pushed the blue oval boys out of my garage in terms of my next vehicle purchase.

Thankfully I will soon have about six or seven grand of VW money to spend on a non VW Audi group product.

And also in terms of leadership look at paint fit and finish.  I have been very impressed with what both Ford and GM have done.  They have also both done an excellent job at improving reliability also IMHO.

[El Kabong]

On 2016-10-27 at 5:58 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I realize this is an old post... but yes it could.  From the CTS V-Sport to the XTS V-Sport the engine loses 10 horsepower and whopping 34 lb-ft of torque just by turning the engine sideways.  The STS gained 25 horsepower going from a side winder to longitudinal. 

My point was that when you're trying to make the same model in different markets losing that kind of power and torque to meet local laws is pretty chintzy. It's the kind of thing you'd see from Lamborghini circa 1985, when the Countach lost its six-pack of Webers and 35hp to meet US regs.  

[Drew Dowdell]

5 minutes ago, El Kabong said:

My point was that when you're trying to make the same model in different markets losing that kind of power and torque to meet local laws is pretty chintzy. It's the kind of thing you'd see from Lamborghini circa 1985, when the Countach lost its six-pack of Webers and 35hp to meet US regs.  

If they had to re-route the exhaust in a strange and sub-optimal way due to steering gear, it would exactly explain why. 

[A Horse With No Name]

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

If they had to re-route the exhaust in a strange and sub-optimal way due to steering gear, it would exactly explain why. 

Seems rational enough.

[ccap41]

I tried explaining this to him back on the first page here but because it is a Mustang and not a Camaro there is no rational thinking going on. Drew gave a great example of same engine losing power with rerouting exhaust and intake as well. That's just the science of the beast.

[A Horse With No Name]

Looking at cars in a dispassionate sort of way is really difficult when you love them.  I struggle with that all of the time.

[El Kabong]

3 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Seems rational enough.

A rationally planned global car would not have those compromises. Just a dispassionate observation. 

[Drew Dowdell]

22 minutes ago, El Kabong said:

A rationally planned global car would not have those compromises. Just a dispassionate observation. 

Oh you mean like how Cadillac is not building RHD ATS/CTS and Chevy isn't building RHD Camaros?

At least Ford tried instead of being like GM and saying Eff it...

[El Kabong]

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Oh you mean like how Cadillac is not building RHD ATS/CTS and Chevy isn't building RHD Camaros?

At least Ford tried instead of being like GM and saying Eff it...

Is Flat Rock up and running again?  

Look. All I know is that they were shouting from the rooftops about how this car was designed to go global. Then we find out that the 5.0 is constipated and the 5.2 is a non-starter in RHD markets. That doesn't sound like a very serious effort, especially in a segment where the V8 is still considered the norm.