surreal1272

That is still not a very convincing argument Reg. especially when you slide in that little OpEd about the cars themselves like it has anything to with their business model versus the dealership model. I worked in car sales about twelve years ago so I know what it takes to keep the machine running and they are more than free to continue to run with that model if they want. I am more in line of giving the customer a choice and if the model that Tesla is running truly sucks as much as you claim, then they will just wither away and die or change and adapt. However, that does not seem to be case and that is why the old guard has been getting so nervous over the last few years. Again, if they can't adapt to the change that may actually benefit all customers, then they will simply be left behind.

Still have yet to hear that convincing argument of how Tesla's business model is "advantageous". Olds made some really good points as to why it could considered the opposite of that given that dealers can show multiple versions of any one car provided by the manufacturer whereas Tesla does not. That is just one of many reasons why this "advantageous" argument is not very convincing. I'm all ears to this "advantage" you speak of Wings.

Big shock. A dealership saying that the new guy needs to work with dealers. Again, color me unconvinced because Penske makes a ton of money from their own dealerships so that is just not a convincing argument at all. How many loopholes do you think Ford, GM, and FCA have taken advantage of over the last century?

^This!

And I hope Tesla flips the establishment on it's old ear. No one company has the right to tell another company how to sell their product. The tactics being used by the old guard are typical of companies that are scared of change. To them I say, suck it up buttercup. Change is coming. You can adapt or get left behind. Yeah, thanks, but I don't believe any 'company' is telling any other 'company' how or what to sell. Not sure where in Hades you got that from. The 'old guard' companies are simply hedging their bets by selling EVERYTHING and more power to them. Yes they are trying to tell them what to do via lobbying through states like Michigan by saying that they can't sell there unless they do it through a dealer network. That is the very definition of telling someone how and what they can sell. That is what in Hades I got that from. If you believe anything else, well then it is pure blindness on your part but not surprising given that your employer is one of the companies lobbying hard against Tesla. Nope, sorry.....lobbying for fairness in Michigan is hardly....HARDLY....the same thing as 'telling companies' how to run their business. You sir, are the blind one. Clearly. Nice try, when you clearly misspoke. My point again, is that fairness is the name of the game here. Fairness would NOT be defined by allowing Tesla their own business model that is exclusive. So if the industry wants a different business model, lobby for that. No sweat off my brow and I would welcome it in fact. But until then, a level playing field should be allowed and respected. It is the same when they are not allowing Tesla to sell there because they won't sell through a dealership like the rest. That is not "fairness". You can type it all you want but that doesn't make it so. Again, I don't expect an employee of one the companies lobbying against them to understand. Your agreement on this is not required for it to be the truth.

And I hope Tesla flips the establishment on it's old ear. No one company has the right to tell another company how to sell their product. The tactics being used by the old guard are typical of companies that are scared of change. To them I say, suck it up buttercup. Change is coming. You can adapt or get left behind. Yeah, thanks, but I don't believe any 'company' is telling any other 'company' how or what to sell. Not sure where in Hades you got that from. The 'old guard' companies are simply hedging their bets by selling EVERYTHING and more power to them. Yes they are trying to tell them what to do via lobbying through states like Michigan by saying that they can't sell there unless they do it through a dealer network. That is the very definition of telling someone how and what they can sell. That is what in Hades I got that from. If you believe anything else, well then it is pure blindness on your part but not surprising given that your employer is one of the companies lobbying hard against Tesla.

And I hope Tesla flips the establishment on it's old ear. No one company has the right to tell another company how to sell their product. The tactics being used by the old guard are typical of companies that are scared of change. To them I say, suck it up buttercup. Change is coming. You can adapt or get left behind.

It's certainly worked wonders for Mercedes.

Just stay away from the i3 for design inspiration and they should be okay. Saw one the other day and nearly gouged my eyes out afterwards.

Right now, one rather large German company is too busy burning diesel money to deal with electric tech.

That I agree with 100% dfelt. Well said.

Bill Clinton did that in the 90's and we still did not get better roads. Then Shrub spent Trillions on his personal war and we still did not win. Wasn't my point dfelt but in my only defense of Bush Jr. he also had to use a military that was cut in half by the Clinton administration during the 90's. There is a direct cause and effect link there but I don't want to talk politics here. It never gets anyone anywhere here.

Bill Clinton did that in the 90's and we still did not get better roads.

Very nice looking Volvo but the rear end tail light treatment is "blah". Overall, a very impressive offering though.

A correction is needed. Lincoln - Down 2.4% (7,918 Vehicles Sold This Month, 303,221 Vehicles Sold So Far This Year) That should be more like around 90,000 sold this year (90,367 to be exact) or else Lincoln suffered the largest month over sales drop in the history of sales drops.

Well their goal, like everyone else's, is to increase market share right? Increased sales lead to increased market share (doesn't always work out like that, but that is the goal). I think that is all the article was implying. Everyone wants to gain market share, but when you're already as big in the US as Ford, GM, and Toyota, there will only be small movements in either direction. Companies with smaller sales numbers simply have an easier time making bigger jumps (Subaru) because they cover fewer segments. Oh, I agree with you on that Drew, but increased sales are always the goal and if it increases their market share, then it's even better for said company's image and future PR and marketing.

That doesn't mean that wasn't highly promoted. It just means that you feel that it wasn't, nothing less nothing more. This article covers the programs end in a little more detail. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2015/11/30/friends-neighbors/76559532/

Well their goal, like everyone else's, is to increase market share right? Increased sales lead to increased market share (doesn't always work out like that, but that is the goal). I think that is all the article was implying.

Except, unlike Toyota, this was not touted as an end of year sale and was on TV all the time. There was hardly a televised NFL game that did not show that spot over and over again. Per the article though, Ford is just changing it to a "Holiday Sales Event", much like everyone else and that makes a lot more sense. It is clear that the Friends and Neighbors campaign did not give them the results they wanted or they would still be running it as such. Per a dealer spokesman, “Obviously their pulling it means it’s disappointed them,” said Jeff Carlson, the owner of Glenwood Springs Ford in western Colorado. “We go by what the consumer says, and the consumer voted not to embrace this.” And it was highly promoted. Per the article, "Ford had been heavily promoting “Friends & Neighbors” with ads inviting shoppers to take advantage of the “inside deal” that’s normally available only to employees’ friends and relatives. The sale set a no-haggle price within about $200 of dealer invoice, though dealers were allowed to undercut that amount -- which many were doing." Per Ford CFO Shanks, “There is no incentive increase,” Shanks told analysts during a question-and-answer session in New York. “This was a marketing program. It was called what it was called to try to attract consumers. We are trying to market our products effectively.” And the sale was probably in response to this little tidbit, "Ford hoped the promotion would help generate strong sales to close out 2015, a year in which its market share has been flat. Forecasts from TrueCar and Edmunds.com show Ford’s share in November flat with a year ago and down from October -- an indication that the promotion had not panned out as much as executives had expected."

In case the WSJ is being a butthole and asking you to sign in or subscribe, here is another article detailing it. http://www.autonews.com/article/20151127/RETAIL/151129886/ford-drops-friends-&-neighbors-sale-early-opts-for-traditional-year

Just start thread banning people who talk about irrelevant crap for 5 pages in every thread. Throw that hammer 'round. <- That, that hammer. But then Ford fans would never be able to post. I kid, I kid folks.

No. I just asked him a simple question and he wants to dodge it after he hounded me for two pages about the same thing. That is all.

And the only reply you're worthy of is a reply c/o you ( post 77 ) " Again, BOTH the Z/28 and GT350R are overpriced in respect to the next step down variants of BOTH cars. I am really not sure what you are having a problem with here other than to try and attack me. " Again, not relevant because it's not me that made the overpriced statement in the first place. You did because you believed it is overpriced, as evidenced by your use of the term "rip off". Now that the Z28 is far cheaper, I simple asked you what you asked me. Remember, I think both were a rip off while you only think one is so just answer the simple question and stop side stepping.

It was marginally better in many respects. The margin of victory it had overall was smaller than the margin of victory between the SS and GT the other week, a margin that was dismissed by two certain posters here. Why does it apply now but not then? Perhaps because your favorite actually won this time? It is you that doesn't know what you are arguing. And #77 is no way related to what I asked. You know what i am talking and now your are dodging it. This was post #67, made by you. "Why would someone pay 13% more ( MSRP per video ) for a Z/28 that doesn't perform as well as a track car, street car and drag car ( not intended function ) compared to the GT350R?" ​I simply reversed it because it applies in this case, knowing that the Z28 is CHEAPER than the GT350R, as you repeatedly pointed out. Remember?

And correction to my first post. It should have read, "was so highly promoted by them".