The Death of Ford in the US?

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:06 am

So when do you think it will happen?One thing has been boggling me for years, even before the Fusion and 500 came out. I am not sure what happened to them, do they just not listen to consumer demand. It seems no matter where you read or see, people are either reviewing European Ford's like the hot Mondeo or Focus (Euro version) and then claiming how it will not be brought to the US ever or in any similar form. Or they are giving good reviews to cars like the Fusion that are good overall cars, but just not as appealing as a new Camry or Accord.Ford had a great concept with the Ford 427, it was stylish, had the lines similar to a Chrysler 300 with the low side windows and chopped looking roof coupled with big wheels. This car would have been a hit and a worthy competitor to the 300. Make it RWD and offer a V8 option and you have got a winner.But I am still puzzled, do they ignore us, is their test populus comprised of 70+ year olds, what is it that drives Ford US to create and sell such boring bland cars. The slightly freshened up 2008 Focus is extremely bland and has no appeal over the new Civic, upcoming Corolla, or even some Hyundais nowadays. Europe gets a RS hatch that is crazy fast and a great performer, as well as a convertible model, we get a few changed body panels and one small unimpressive engine.OursTheirsGod I could talk about this all day but moving on, the number of small cars offered by Ford UK is staggering compared to what we have. They offer the Ka, Fiesta, Fusion (think of it as a tall mini wagon), Focus, C-MAX (smaller version of the S-MAX or as we know it Mazda 5). The US only gets the Focus, meanwhile companies like GM is importing tons of rebadged Opels to replace many cars. Like the Saturn ION is now going to be the Saturn Astra, based on the Opel, the new VUE is based off an Opel, and the Sky is exported as an Opel. But the fact still lies, that they are getting smart and offering more small cars with European flare.Think of Honda, Nissan, Toyota. They all brought over cars like the Fit, Versa, and the new Auris/Yaris. And they plan to bring over others in the near future as well. But Ford continues to produce their large, bulky uneventful SUVs that perform about as well as a 1970's Cadillac.The Focus is practically dead as it has nothing to offer but a single base engine and some amenities. No sport performance model, no touring model, no convertible, nothing, zilch, nada. That and Americans have already overpassed this car in favor of something slick, new and green with the new Civic. I would really love to know what the CEO of Ford's strategy is to boost sales and offer something that the consumer in the states would be proud to own. I am not sure that time will ever come again personally, the Mustang cannot be their only savior, especially with the new Challenger and Camaro coming out, with soon after a redesigned GTO, and possibly a Trans Am / Firebird. The Fusion is going to need a freshen up soon and an offering of a little more power and some different taillamps. And the new Taurus/Sable needs a redesign from the ground up, although, the interior is nicely appointed, a serious adjustment the paneling and a RWD platform with a V8 option is a must. If your going to rename the thing Taurus, then bring back an SHO version!OK, I've written enough and haven't come close to saying it all yet, but I really think that Ford needs to step back, take a good look at their Mazda division and retool themselves. The Mazda 6 for instance uses the 3.0L V6 as an optional, it is the same engine found in the last generation Taurus, yet with some Mazda ingenuity it became a sporty little runner. Alright, I'm done for now, seriously.

Kamikaze · Post by **Kamikaze** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:09 am

The Ford 427 reminds me of a 60's Lincoln Continental... I love those cars...The new focus on Euro specs looks sweet, the front end looks like what we need instead of something soooo boring...

NibCrom · Post by **NibCrom** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:19 am

I honestly think Ford has no idea what they are doing. All of their vehicles look the same. They all have so much chrome on them you can't differentiate the Lincolns from the Mercurys and the Mercurys from the Ford. The new Focus is a joke. I didn't mind the last ones, but the new ones just look like garbage. I don't think they're even offering a hatch version.

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:25 am

One other point I would like to make here, is that Ford is price concious, overy price concious that is because they feel people would not pay higher prices for imported Fords. Solution is not so hard, instead of Mercury selling a flashy Fusion the Milan, or Montego/Sable which is the 500/Taurus. Why not bring over the European models and sell them as Mercury. Bring over the Mondeo, the C-MAX, and S-MAX, very european chic cars, the market Mercury is trying to get to.And they could still bring the Focus over, a little higher price, but it could still compete with the likes of Civic and Corolla if they setup their factories here to build them, thus cutting import costs. Not to mention they would have the Fiesta back and the Ka as a mini compact as well. I can tell you one thing, when the new Corolla comes out, you will see nobody on a Ford lot buying a Focus, which is not very different from what you see now.

Mavrik · Post by **Mavrik** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:25 am

other then the truck market... Ford doesn't seem to be doing well at all. The age of the Big Three is over.

jake75 · Post by **jake75** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:44 am

I have 1,500 sh of Ford Stock which a few years ago would have bought me the best Lincoln but now would only cover the price of a cheap Focus. Dividends were even suspended a couple years ago. Their reincarnation of the T-Bird was sheer stupidity. A mediocre car priced over $40,000. They could have sold a ton of a smaller less powerful T-Bird reincaration in the $20,000 to $25,000 price range. Ford only offered the Focus Wagon in the higher trim level. Even those were difficult to find on dealer lots. It was discontinued a couple of years ago. I think a Focus SW in the lower trim level could have been a winner.

jake75 · Post by **jake75** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:50 am

Wall St Jrnl Financial Article on Ford 10-25-07Ford posted a net loss of $12.6 billion in 2006, and its sales are off 13.3% in the first nine months of this year amid a broader downturn in the market, driven by the housing slump and rising gasoline prices. After a profit of $468 million in the first half of 2007 -- much of that from one-time items such as the sale of Aston Martin -- Ford is likely to post a loss in the third quarter. And a growing number of analysts are now questioning whether Ford can achieve its goal of returning to profitability by 2009."The outlying, next couple years look a bit worse than we expected when 2007 started," says one of the Ford managers. "The housing market and its growing impact on truck sales is a serious, continuing concern."It's unclear how far the UAW would be willing to go to help Ford weather the storm. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has said Ford's contract is likely to follow the pattern set by the agreements hammered out with GM and Chrysler. Both got deals allowing them to shift billions of dollars in retiree health-care obligations off their books to union-run trusts, known as voluntary employees' beneficiary associations, or VEBAs. They also get two-tier wage systems that enable the companies to hire new workers in certain "noncore" jobs, such as materials handlers, at a compensation package half that of most previous hires.Jerry Sullivan, president of UAW Local 600 at the Ford F-150 plant in Dearborn, Mich., says his members know Ford is still in trouble and looking to cut more costs. Mr. Sullivan's members are "ready to OK a contract like the one GM did, or at least one close to the concept they had at GM," he says. "The company is still pretty sick, I think," says Mr. Sullivan, who has been with Ford for 36 years, the last 10 as head of the auto maker's largest UAW local.The union is expected to begin final talks with Ford soon. Ratification of the Chrysler contract could come today after workers at an auto plant in Belvidere, Ill., vote on the deal; it's the last big plant to cast ballots. The Chrysler contract faced stronger-than-expected opposition, leaving ratification in question for several days. But on Wednesday, four plants outside Detroit all voted strongly in favor of it. A simple majority is all that is needed for ratification, and the deal has been accepted by about 55% of the Chrysler workers who have voted.Because of its sluggish financial situation, Ford would like a new labor contract that expands the definition of what is a so-called non-core UAW job, which would get less in wages and benefits than existing union jobs, a person familiar with the matter says. This would enable Ford to push more new hires into this lower-compensated designation. Ford and the UAW are also discussing another potential round of buyouts and are revisiting the fate of six unidentified plants the auto maker intends to close as part of its turnaround plan, another person familiar with the matter says.Part of Ford's concern is that GM, with an older work force and many more workers closer to retirement age, has gotten an agreement tailored to save GM more money, more quickly than a similar deal would at Ford, said two people involved in the talks.Ford and the UAW also haven't made much progress on talks about a VEBA, these people say. Actuaries on both sides still disagree about health-care inflation trend rates, so the two sides still haven't agreed what Ford's retiree health-care liability is -- let alone how it will be funded."Ford is staring at the pattern, resisting it, and trying to figure out a way to get more than GM got. Ford definitely doesn't want to make all the product commitments GM did," says one person involved in the talks.Added labor concessions may not be enough to pull the company into the black in the next two years.Many industry leaders and auto analysts now predict auto makers could sell fewer than 16 million cars and trucks in the U.S. in 2008 -- the lowest figure in a decade. Nissan Motor Co. Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn said before the Tokyo Motor Show that sales could bottom out at 15.5 million -- 1.5 million off a peak of 17 million a few years ago.That comes at a bad time for Ford, which needs revenue to offset negative cash flow through 2009 and pay its debt. A big sales downturn could force Ford -- already shopping its Jaguar and Land Rover brands to refocus on its core business -- to unload Volvo and perhaps a significant stake in Ford Motor Credit, its financing arm, Mr. Casesa says.Ford has posted far steeper sales declines this year than its competitors amid a deliberate drawdown in low-margin sales to government and daily rental fleets and attempts to restrain discounting.What's more, Ford has years to go in achieving cost-saving global synergies, a linchpin of its turnaround effort under Chief Executive Alan Mulally, who has just finished his first year on the job. Most of Ford's similar vehicles, such as the Focus small car, are built on different platforms in different global markets.In addition, Ford has a relatively bare cupboard of new products between now and 2009. The Focus marks one of Ford's few new entries; Mr. Mulally told reporters and Ford employees during a recent gathering at the Focus's assembly plant in Wayne, Mich., that the car will "define the Ford Motor Co. going forward." But the Focus will need to gain a lot of traction in a bearish market to give Ford real gains.For the auto maker, the upshot of worsening sales is clear, says John Casesa, a former Merrill Lynch & Co. auto analyst who now heads his own advisory firm: "Lose more money and expand the restructuring plan."If Ford is forced back to the drawing board, it would be the third iteration of a restructuring plan originally launched in January 2006. The second, accelerated round of restructuring had a goal of cutting 14,000 salaried jobs and 25,000 to 30,000 hourly positions by the end of 2008.Now, Ford is evaluating its 2008 budgets and re-examining its economic assumptions for the next couple of years, people familiar with Ford's deliberations say. The auto maker hasn't determined whether it will need to cut even more jobs, but may come to that conclusion soon, say two Ford managers. Budgets could be squeezed by an additional 10% to 15% in some departments, these executives say.

JohnC · Post by **JohnC** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:09 am

For those that like to gamble in the market, it is a good time to buy Ford stock. $$$$

damronjr · Post by **damronjr** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:33 am

I happen to love the new Ford Edge, and the Fusion I think is nice as well. I'm not versed as to what they offer besides their looks, so I can't judge or compare, but at least those 2 and the newest style Mustang are at least nice looking. I do think a lot of the companies need to start investing in more consumer research. Let the people decide and stop deciding for them! You bring out a concept everybody loves, then you either hammer it to dog**** or drop it like it wasn't even a possibility. There are some sweet concepts out there, and I'm sure even more beautiful minds with some awesome ideas, they just need to get realized and acknowledged.

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:11 pm

Quote, originally posted by damronjr Â»I happen to love the new Ford Edge, and the Fusion I think is nice as well. I'm not versed as to what they offer besides their looks, so I can't judge or compare, but at least those 2 and the newest style Mustang are at least nice looking. I do think a lot of the companies need to start investing in more consumer research. Let the people decide and stop deciding for them! You bring out a concept everybody loves, then you either hammer it to dog**** or drop it like it wasn't even a possibility. There are some sweet concepts out there, and I'm sure even more beautiful minds with some awesome ideas, they just need to get realized and acknowledged.Take a look at Chrysler, they put out concepts that turned into many newer cars, the PT Cruiser which was the Pronto in concept. Not my favorite car in the least, but a massive seller. The Charger, was a concept with good review and is making good sales as well as turning up in Police Forces everywhere.Then you have the likes of GM who put a concept Camaro out there, and now the production version is said to be 98% like the concept! It just goes to show, Ford will introduce a concept like the 427, then use the grille and some features to put into a new car. Why wouldn't you just make the car a production version in the first place if it got such a good review instead of just styling cues. Ford is in deep ****, and GM is in my opinion doing much better since they rolled out all these new models, no name changing either. Just look at the redesigned all new Malibu. Now that cars is a looker, and under 30k fully loaded in LTZ form!

Petrucci914 · Post by **Petrucci914** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 am

Get rid of the unions and the Big Three can regain their positions again.

jimincalif · Post by **jimincalif** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:00 am

Quote, originally posted by Petrucci914 Â»Get rid of the unions and the Big Three can regain their positions again.I am no fan of unions generally, but the union's not responsible for Ford's poor management decisions re their product line, their over-reliance on SUVs, their underinvestment in passenger car development, etc. They were making boatloads of money on SUVs in the 90s and they let the Taurus die on the vine with no updates after about 95-96, while Toyota and Honda continue to update their bread and butter Camry/Accord models. Remember for a while Taurus and Accord were neck and neck for best selling passenger car IIRC. The union did not make the decision to let it die.

kostby · Post by **kostby** » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:59 pm

It takes vision to see the big picture.It takes guts to stay the course and implement future plans when the future is uncertain.It takes money to retool.It takes BRAINS to know when and how to stay the course, spend the money to retool, and implement the vision.At the moment, Ford has neither guts, nor brains, nor vision, nor money. And, mostly, it's their own dang fault.The last huge automotive styling risk Ford took was the 1996 Taurus. Although personally, I loved it (and I still own a '96 Taurus), it eventually cost Ford first place in the conservative medium-large FWD family sedan market to first Accord and then Camry. The Symphony of Ovals styling was too 'out there' for the marketplace at the time. The F-150 and the Explorer were the perennial and enduring 'cash cows' that enabled Ford to take that risk on the Taurus. When Taurus didn't pay off, it served to limit risk-taking behavior and constrain cash available for future 'risky' cars. The 2005 'retro' recreation of the Mustang was the last relatively successful risk Ford has taken, but as the last remaining ponycar, the Mustang sales volume isn't enough to save the entire company.Importing European Fords would be fine, IF they already met US specs for crash safety and emissions. I'm guessing that the Euro models don't even come close on either count, or we'd have them here already. A re-engineering and re-tooling for the US-only would cost hundreds of millions that Ford doesn't have available.Regarding Mercury, they've imported a succession of 'foreign' models over the last 40 years. Here's the ones that come to mind immediately: The German 4-passenger Capris in the 1970's, the Merkur, the Scorpio, the Australian 2-seater Capri in the 80's, and the Villager mini-van (joint venture with Nissan aka Quest) which actually sold pretty well.The Lincoln Mercury dealerships were clueless about how to sell 'sporty' cars to the typical 67-year-old Grand Marquis buyer, the 75-year-old Lincoln Town Car buyer, AND how to even begin to attract a younger-than-67 customer into the showrooms, or what to do with them if a 30- or 40-something DID show up.Finally, the 'least risky, most conservative, least costly alternative' became Standard Operating Procedure when Bill Ford was replaced as CEO.

scott_h · Post by **scott_h** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:38 am

Whew - when I read the thread title, I though it said 'the death of food in the US.'

coldmm803 · Post by **coldmm803** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:48 am

i dont know when it will happen but they cant keep up what their doing. i agree, they need to bring over some of the eruo designs. my dad replaced his sable last year with a 500. i havent driven the 500 much but i dont like it. i dont like the seating height, its just odd not sure why but it doesnt feel right and the handeling is crap, my 99 dakota was much better.

engineertwin2 · Post by **engineertwin2** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:39 am

It ain't gonna happen...uh-uh...no way. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to look at what happened to Chrysler in the 70's right when Iaccocca took over for them...government backed, bail-out loans.And before you cry and complain about it, the loss of Ford would destroy the economies of midland America...gov't wouldn't want to do it, but they would.They'll get things right sooner or later. The 500/Taurus is a good car. The Fusion is a nice car. I like the Edge alot. They have the only 4-wheel-drive hybrid (and there is a demand for it in AZ).So, not gonna happen...

TJinPgh · Post by **TJinPgh** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:06 pm

Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 Â»It ain't gonna happen...uh-uh...no way. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to look at what happened to Chrysler in the 70's right when Iaccocca took over for them...government backed, bail-out loans.While you could be right, I, personally, would oppose it.First of all, I'm against government bailouts to begin with. However, there were significant differences between what happened with Chrysler and what's going on now with Ford.First of all, the "Big Three" auto makers are no longer the only American made automobiles. Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia and Mitsubishi all have factories in this country, with more on the way.Second, the term "American Made" when it comes to automobiles is greatly exagerated. I don't know about Ford, but Chrysler doesn't even make engines in this country any more.Third, Iococca had an actual business plan that was a pathway to success. Ford, unfortunately, does not appear to. A short term lack of revenue (which is all a government bail out is) is not Ford's problem. Ford doesn't simply need to stem the tide until a new business model kicks in. Ford NEEDS a new business model, as do all of the so-called "American" auto industries.Like I said, you may be right. I doubt either this congress or even this president has much of a problem throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at a losing proposition.

KNINE · Post by **KNINE** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:17 pm

I remember back in the 80's when I was in the Navy, almost every vehicle the navy owned ( cars, vans, pickups ) was a Chrysler product. I guess buying all those vehicles was part of the bail out. I now work on a Navy base as a civilian. Most vehicles are GM, mostly Chevy.

ColonelPanic · Post by **ColonelPanic** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:58 pm

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh Â»Second, the term "American Made" when it comes to automobiles is greatly exagerated. I don't know about Ford, but Chrysler doesn't even make engines in this country any more.Heh, like the Fusion that everybody raves about or the Focus that are Mexican-built. Technically I suppose they still are "American," it's just that they're "North American." However calling those "American" is a better fit than say, the American Revolution Daewoo-produced Chevy Aveo from South Korea. lol!

scherry2 · Post by **scherry2** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:44 pm

Quote, originally posted by Petrucci914 Â»Get rid of the unions and the Big Three can regain their positions again.oh yea those employees who don't design the vehicles its all their fault. its not the CEO of GM who makes 32x as much as the CEO of Toyota. naa it couldn't be that, or the fact that Delphi (a divison of GM, believe it or not) who is going through bankruptsy is paying 400 top executives $94,000.00 bonuses, (which they as a company can't afford). maybe its the stockholders fault, they, who invest their $$ into a company, who don't get crap for a return. yea maybe thats it.....give your fellow north american workers a break would you. and look for the real problem. poor marketing and poor design and more than their fair share of greedy executives.

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:33 am

Quote, originally posted by kostby Â»Importing European Fords would be fine, IF they already met US specs for crash safety and emissions. I'm guessing that the Euro models don't even come close on either count, or we'd have them here already. A re-engineering and re-tooling for the US-only would cost hundreds of millions that Ford doesn't have available.The new Fusion is based directly off a new global platform used for the Mondeo in Europe. Most companies nowadays have switched or are switching to Global platforms so that it is easier to build different models all across the world.Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 Â»It ain't gonna happen...uh-uh...no way. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to look at what happened to Chrysler in the 70's right when Iaccocca took over for them...government backed, bail-out loans.And before you cry and complain about it, the loss of Ford would destroy the economies of midland America...gov't wouldn't want to do it, but they would.I put the topic thread more as a title than a meaningful fact. I wanted to spur discussion which I have, I don't think they will close down and I sure hope they do not. Also most of the new Fords are built in Mexico, not like the old days of the Taurus when it had the made in Ohio sticker on it. And the fact that companies like Subaru, Hyundai, Toyota, and Honda have done more to spur the automotive economy by building plants (not to mention cleaner plants that use less energy), and giving tens of thousands jobs. Of course they have an edge cause they are much more advanced and newer facilities, but you typically hear of the big 3 layoffs. And now the Japanese cars that are being built here are more American than American cars. Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 Â»They'll get things right sooner or later. The 500/Taurus is a good car. The Fusion is a nice car. I like the Edge alot. They have the only 4-wheel-drive hybrid (and there is a demand for it in AZ).One HUGE mistake with this one, the Toyota Highlander is a hybrid, and the Lexus RX400h is a hybrid, all come with 4WD. And technically you could consider the GM flexfuel SUVs that can run on either gasoline or E85 ethanol hybrids as well, just that they do not use a electric motor. And the older Ford FFV's that were able to run on kerosene.

TJinPgh · Post by **TJinPgh** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:47 pm

Quote, originally posted by scherry2 Â»oh yea those employees who don't design the vehicles its all their fault. its not the CEO of GM who makes 32x as much as the CEO of Toyota. naa it couldn't be that, or the fact that Delphi (a divison of GM, believe it or not) who is going through bankruptsy is paying 400 top executives $94,000.00 bonuses, (which they as a company can't afford). We've had this discussion before. You could pay those executives minimum wage and the difference between what they'd make then versus what they make now still wouldn't make the company profitable.I'll be the first to agree that paying out bonuses to executives of companies that are not only losing money but are on the verge of bankruptcy is absurd. But, what the executives make are the least of your problems.

jimincalif · Post by **jimincalif** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:24 pm

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh Â»I'll be the first to agree that paying out bonuses to executives of companies that are not only losing money but are on the verge of bankruptcy is absurd. But, what the executives make are the least of your problems.They shouldn't be paying them to the same people that got them into this situation, that's for sure! But in the short run they might have to pay even more to bring in new talent. Successful execs are always in high demand, and they don't want to hitch their wagon to a dying horse without being well-paid for the risk.What's interesting is why the shareholders, thru the board, aren't getting better results. Perhaps it is because Ford is still controlled by the Ford family with a special class of stock with a 17:1 voting advantage over common stock. Don't know what they are thinking. Kinda reminds me of another family-controlled public company that is in a downward spiral - The NY Times.

TJinPgh · Post by **TJinPgh** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:20 pm

Well, there are clearly those who believe that workers should be paid higher than executives.Good luck finding a job where that's the case. Best you're likely to find is a company that's employee owned. But, even there, I guarantee that there's a tiered pay structure. The executives will always make more.

scherry2 · Post by **scherry2** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:37 pm

well when Petrucci914 post this: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Get rid of the unions and the Big Three can regain their positions again.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think he shows his ignorance. and I explained why. as for "what the executives make is the least of my problems" that kind of shows more ignorance. If Toyota CEO's make so little and can make a company so profitable. just shows how greedy the American CEO is. and it also shows just how greedy anyone is, who believes the American CEO deserves that pay. TJinPgh,let me be clear, I never said I as a worker should make more than a CEO. and I would like you to prove that someone on this board or any board did.

drunkenmaxx · Post by **drunkenmaxx** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:27 pm

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh Â»Well, there are clearly those who believe that workers should be paid higher than executives.ha, i would love to for them to come have a taste of what i make and live off of then! it's easy to sit and say the execs are the only ones overpaid, pointing the finger is much easier than having to compromise any of your own comforts.

TJinPgh · Post by **TJinPgh** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:17 am

Quote, originally posted by scherry2 Â»as for "what the executives make is the least of my problems" that kind of shows more ignorance. If Toyota CEO's make so little and can make a company so profitable. just shows how greedy the American CEO is. and it also shows just how greedy anyone is, who believes the American CEO deserves that pay.You can continue with the union mandated class warfare rhetoric if you wish. Frankly, I couldn't care less what the owners of my company makes. And, I can assure you, that the CEO of my company does far less for a living than yours. But, I digress.I ran the numbers on this once before, and you chose to ignore them. If you fired the CEO of GM, took his salary and every dime he's ever made in bonuses and divided that up among the hourly workers, it would amount to a couple of hundred dollars a YEAR difference in their pay. Far less than ONE MONTH of car payments on ANY car that GM currently sells.If you want to continue to believe that your CEOs are overpaid, fine. I am inclined to agree. But, to continue to foster this notion that GM is going broke because the executives make too much is naive and flat out wrong.GM is going broke because they aren't selling enough cars to cover their expenses. Plain and simple. Sales are declining on an annual basis. Most American consumers couldn't care less whether it's European, Asian or American in design. It's quality for the buck they care about. And, the American car companies are NOT delivering it.Are the incomes of people employed by GM a part of that problem? Absolutely. Do the executives of GM make more than the executives of Toyota? I have no clue. Their executives are in Japan. But, if I had to guess, I'd say yes, they are.I find it funny, though, that you are quick to suggest that your employers should make no more than theirs, but you totally reject any notion that YOU should make what THEIR hourly employees make.Double standard? Quote Â»let me be clear, I never said I as a worker should make more than a CEO. and I would like you to prove that someone on this board or any board did.Not directly, no. But, no matter what they make, you seem to be annoyed by it.As I have proven, their pay is clearly not coming out of YOUR pay, nor is it having a major impact on the price of the cars. So, I don't see the point in caring what they make, deserved or not.

drunkenmaxx · Post by **drunkenmaxx** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:21 am

the CEOs are greedy, yet the workers demand outrageous wages, not to mention tons of free benefits.

scherry2 · Post by **scherry2** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:58 am

well it seems that foreign automakers reinvest money into the company instead of paying overinflated prices for CEO's. and again I never said take the CEO's pay and divide it up amongst the workers. you did.I never said workers want more pay than the CEO. you did.and now.I stated that the top 400 executives of Delphi, a GM company, in bankruptsy got paid $90,000 each. thats $36,000,000. but yet they make the hourly employees take 1/2 their wage cut in pay to $14 per hour. and you have the balls to say"But, to continue to foster this notion that GM is going broke because the executives make too much is naive and flat out wrong."

Petrucci914 · Post by **Petrucci914** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:14 am

I don't really have a problem with how much their paid. As a publicly held company the shareholders (the owners) make those compensation choices so it's not up to us to criticize it. I think Ford is doing pretty well with some of their latest cars. I like the Edge and Fusion a lot. The Focus is looking good as well. A lot of these domestic companies need to sell off some of their brands and get focused, though. Ford has Volvo, Mazda, etc. etc. They don't need all those other brands to worry about when their main brand is struggling. There also has to be a larger separation between Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. Simply taking the Fusion, making leather seats standard, and putting larger rims and more chrome on it isn't the answer. Lexus is Toyota's luxury brand and none of the vehicles between the two look similar. The luxury vehicles have a higher margin and that must be easily apparent to the customers. Get away from Unions as much as possible, get rid of Mercury, and focus on where to place Lincoln. Should it compete against Buick or Cadillac? Cadillac has taken a performance route to compete against BMW and Mercedes, whereas buick is kinda in the middle. Lincoln needs to differentiate itself from Ford brands and find out who it really wants to compete against.

jimincalif · Post by **jimincalif** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:53 am

Quote, originally posted by drunkenmaxx Â»the CEOs are greedy, yet the workers demand outrageous wages, not to mention tons of free benefits.What does "greedy" mean? Everyone is looking to maximize their own situation, nothing wrong with this, don't we all look for the best deal? Of course workers want higher wages and benefits - who doesn't?The question is what will the market bear for the job that needs to be done and the skills needed to perform the job? The market economy is based on voluntary exchange where both parties are willing to engage in a transaction. If the buyer is not willing to pay the market rate, or the seller is demanding more than the market rate, the transaction does not occur and they go elsewhere. If a CEO candidate wants $10 million and the board of GM decides he or she will bring more than this in value to the company, they buy. If not, they pass, or the CEO lowers his price. The board makes the decision and has to answer to the shareholders for it.If an employee on the line wants $25/hr and the company is willing to pay just $16, then the employee goes elsewhere to hopefully find that higher paying job. If they can't find it, they lower their price. If the company cannot find sufficient numbers of qualified employees at $16, they have to raise their offer.Interestingly, higher CEO compensation is one of the unintended results of 1993 tax bill that Clinton pushed through, denying companies a tax deduction for CEO salaries in excess of $1 million, unless it is performance based. So CEO compensation is tied to stock price and other performance measures, and has actually gone up since this law was enacted.

engineertwin2 · Post by **engineertwin2** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:53 am

Quote, originally posted by Whelan Â»One HUGE mistake with this one, the Toyota Highlander is a hybrid, and the Lexus RX400h is a hybrid, all come with 4WD. And technically you could consider the GM flexfuel SUVs that can run on either gasoline or E85 ethanol hybrids as well, just that they do not use a electric motor. And the older Ford FFV's that were able to run on kerosene.Nope...not a HUGE mistake at all. While Toyota offers the Highlander as a hybrid, it is not available with AWD or with 4WD (this according to their website).And you are correct about the RX400h - sort of. First off, technically, it is available in an AWD format but their are two rebuttals I have. First, the RX400h is more than $15,000 more than the Escape Hybrid - that's almost another Vibe - and puts it out of reach of someone considering the Escape.Secondly, the part-time AWD falls far short of what I would consider a viable alternative to 4WD, for reasons pretty much too long and too off-topic to discuss here.And regarding E85, I hardly consider the use of an alternative fuel as being hybrid. It's hardly more sustainable than petroleum, demand is low, and fuel improvements are not there - there is less energy in ethanol than gasoline (about 80% of what gasoline has), which results in worse gas mileage. In addition, I believe that the primary philosophy of the hybrid (although somewhat flawed) is a reduced carbon footprint, from at least a fuel burned perspective. E85 wouldn't meet either of these tests...

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:41 am

Quote, originally posted by Petrucci914 Â»of these domestic companies need to sell off some of their brands and get focused, though. Ford has Volvo, Mazda, etc. etc. They don't need all those other brands to worry about when their main brand is struggling. There also has to be a larger separation between Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln. Simply taking the Fusion, making leather seats standard, and putting larger rims and more chrome on it isn't the answer. Lexus is Toyota's luxury brand and none of the vehicles between the two look similar. The luxury vehicles have a higher margin and that must be easily apparent to the customers. Get away from Unions as much as possible, get rid of Mercury, and focus on where to place Lincoln. Should it compete against Buick or Cadillac? Cadillac has taken a performance route to compete against BMW and Mercedes, whereas buick is kinda in the middle. Lincoln needs to differentiate itself from Ford brands and find out who it really wants to compete against.I completely agree that they need to focus on their core brands, I would however keep the likes of Volvo and Mazda. They could use them around, both are doing well as of late. For Mercury, the flashy versions of the Escape, Taurus/500, and Fusion have always been something they have done, Mercury was always a slightly pricier leather trim standard version of Ford. They really need to refit the autos available, as I said, maybe by using a flashy version of a Mazda 6 instead of a Fusion, to be more performance oriented. And for Lincoln, I think they missed the boat with Caddy, Caddy is going right for Lexus, Acura, Infiniti and even BMW to a point. But I would place Lincoln in competition with Buick at the moment as their latest creations have been very lackluster.Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 Â»Nope...not a HUGE mistake at all. While Toyota offers the Highlander as a hybrid, it is not available with AWD or with 4WD (this according to their website).And you are correct about the RX400h - sort of. First off, technically, it is available in an AWD format but their are two rebuttals I have. First, the RX400h is more than $15,000 more than the Escape Hybrid - that's almost another Vibe - and puts it out of reach of someone considering the Escape.Secondly, the part-time AWD falls far short of what I would consider a viable alternative to 4WD, for reasons pretty much too long and too off-topic to discuss here.The Highlander comes in an AWD mode as stated in their website, select the Highlander and specifications and scroll to the bottomFront engine Electronic On-Demand 4-wheel drive with intelligence (4WD-i) [5]] This is standard on the Hybrid and Hybrid Limited.Again the Highlander is more expensive than the Escape, but Toyota is coming out soon with the Hybrid Rav 4 which will compete directly. As for part-time AWD, the Escape is a full time system, but I don't see the need for a full time 4WD in an hybrid that does more urban tracking than anything else. If I want a full time 4WD system to take me off road, I'll hop in my fiance's Jeep Liberty. For everyday and inclement weather, FWD works to get better mileage and the AWD is there when you need it, just like my Trix and I love it that way.Also, not being pushy, just keeping the debate lively New ResponseOne thing I think that needs to be put into focus, everyone jumps right to salaries, and executives, and unions. But what drives a company? What is that company in business for, automobiles. They make and sell cars at the core of their business. So if your product is not selling well or not appealing to the consumer and your profits reflect this, why try to work from the inside to cut things apart to save a buck. The car is your profit, re-engineer it, reshape it, and sell. The whole point being that you need to spend money to make money.Let's say I own a restaurant, invest money, it fails. I sell it to another person, they re-open it exactly the way it was, destined to fail cause no time or money or effort was invested to the product itself to change things around. I think that some cuts were necessary at Ford, but once they did make those cuts a few years back, they never did anything to their product line except a few updates. New sheetmetal on the Escape, yet another Explorer and F150, a new Super Duty F350 that they advertise like crazy when market for those is not as large as the small car market. And a Focus based entirely off it's predecessor with some new looks, same engine, and given the reviews, subpar in all other categories. If your going to make an All-New car and not try and at least reach for the benchmark a la Corolla and Civic, then why bother. Just so you can steal a few percentage points in sales from the competitors. That is the worst business model I have ever seen. Once again, do you open up a pizza place to just make a few dollars and be so so with Mickey's Pizza down the street, maybe take some of his people and be done. Heck no! You strive to be the best in town, the one everyone wants to go to. If your in business to just be mediocre, then you should find a new job. Like I said, spend money to make money, invest in your product, the Focus we got should have never been made, they complained about importing the European model and the costs involved vs. margins. BS!, total BS! If you setup your plants on the US side to create said products overseas so that shipping them across would not be necessary, said for a few small components, then use your own or similar engine lineup from the same blocks, the initial cost would be high, absolutely. But in the long run you would have a fantastic product that would be nose to nose with the Civic and you would gain much more brand recognition, more people would see that car, then come to notice the Fusion even more, or other models. The big talk today is global platforms for manufacturers, yet Ford is doing the opposite, using old platforms on US cars, and sharing a global platform with the rest of the world?!?!I won't even touch on the SUV market cause most all other brands are making tight handling, well balanced SUVs and it seems the Explorer and Expedition are still these large, floppy, floating cars.

joatmon · Post by **joatmon** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:30 am

A lot of people have hard core brand loyalties, I don't, although I do factor in the % US content in the car decision. There is the AALA stickers, but I have never been able to find a web site that shows the % US content across makes/models. This last time the Vibe won because of MPG ratings, when it dies and I buy a replacement, who knows, maybe it will be a Ford. ALthough I may have to give a preference to GM, the local GM dealer is the second oldest in the US. I can't use their service department anymore, they are always overbooked fixing trailblazers.Ford got some decent reliability ratings in the latest consumer reports results, hopefully that will help them sell more cars. My personal experience with Ford reliability hasn't been that hot, but it has also been on older used vehicles, no experience with what they are putting out now.

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:48 am

I understand your sticking with a American brand, but have you not considered how much of a car like a Camry or Accord something of the like is American. The Accord we have here is not sold in Europe, the TL is based off of it. The Accord they have is what we call the Acura TSX here. Canada has an Acura calles the CSX that is based off the Civic. That aside, cars like the TL, MDX, RDX are made something like a 40/60 ratio between Canada and the US. They import the TSX from Japan. Some of these foreign brands are more American than the US companies themselves.

NibCrom · Post by **NibCrom** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:45 am

I would never consider a Honda or a Toyota American. They are Japanese companies with headquarters in Japan, right? To me, that makes them foreign auto makers.Which is not to say that makes them the worst thing ever, but I prefer to buy American myself, for that reason and others. And yes, I realize the Vibe is basically Toyota engineered.

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:48 am

Yes they are headquartered ultimately in Japan, but they have complete divisions here in the US. So the US has its own headquarters as well.

Petrucci914 · Post by **Petrucci914** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:50 am

Quote, originally posted by NibCrom Â»I would never consider a Honda or a Toyota American. They are Japanese companies with headquarters in Japan, right? To me, that makes them foreign auto makers.Which is not to say that makes them the worst thing ever, but I prefer to buy American myself, for that reason and others. And yes, I realize the Vibe is basically Toyota engineered.It doesn't matter where they're located. They are publicly-held, so therefore they are owned by stockholders which are not necessarily, and most likely, aren't all Japanese. For all we know GM could have more foreign owners.

NibCrom · Post by **NibCrom** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:14 am

How does it not matter where they are located? Aren't Ferrari and Lamborghini Italian car brands? Obviously Honda and Toyota have a major presence in the United States and give plenty of people jobs, but they're both Japanese companies. I mean, you could say they are Japanese multinational companies, but come on, they're Japanese.

Petrucci914 · Post by **Petrucci914** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:18 am

Quote, originally posted by NibCrom Â»How does it not matter where they are located? Aren't Ferrari and Lamborghini Italian car brands? Obviously Honda and Toyota have a major presence in the United States and give plenty of people jobs, but they're both Japanese companies. I mean, you could say they are Japanese multinational companies, but come on, they're Japanese.Yesssssssssssssss, but like I said it's not like the money goes to the Japanese Empire. It goes to the shareholders. Currently it doesn't really matter where a corporation is located if they're held publicly. So if you feel like you're giving the evil Japanese money, then you're just not thinking correctly. The only difference it makes is where and how many jobs are created.

NibCrom · Post by **NibCrom** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:23 am

Haha. No, I wasn't saying all the money was going to evil foreigners. If I felt that way I probably wouldn't have bought a Toyota-sourced Vibe. I'm just saying in simplified terms Honda and Toyota are Japanese companies. It's where their headquarters are. I think we understand each other, we're just sort of talking in different terms.Edit: But I do have to say, Ford's biggest problem isn't it's unions, sure they might have trouble paying healthcare and such, but I think Ford's biggest problem is that they're products are BORING. As shown earlier in this thread, the new Focus is boring. Not that I'm a big Ford fan, but they need some new life. The Mustang and the F150 are just older ideas rehashed, and while those have been successful, the rest of their products have suffered.

ramenboy... · Post by **ramenboy...** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:01 am

i posted this somewhere before...i agree with you guys.i don't understand why if ford owns mazda, mazda has no problem bringing over their speed 6 and speed 3, but ford won't bring their european focus to the states.am i missing something?

Petrucci914 · Post by **Petrucci914** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:03 am

Not really. It's called stupidity. It's an American curse. It's very hard to break.

joatmon · Post by **joatmon** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:04 am

I wouldn't really be interested in a Camry or an Accord. They don't have the MPG numbers, there are US branded vehicles that get better MPGs, like the Vibe. Besides, there's a ton of them out there, a Camry is as anonymous as a minivan anymore.But whenever the day comes I do need to buy a new car, I will check the AALA stickers to maximize domestic content, and even if it is a multinational company publicly held with no particular country of allegiance, I will still try to stick with the big three. But I've been told here (not by you) that my position proves my poor judgement, low intelligence, and failure to understand reality.

TJinPgh · Post by **TJinPgh** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:24 am

Quote, originally posted by scherry2 Â»and again I never said take the CEO's pay and divide it up amongst the workers. you did.Yes, I did. I did it to prove a point, which I did. You simply choose to ignore it.Quote Â»I stated that the top 400 executives of Delphi, a GM company, in bankruptsy got paid $90,000 each. thats $36,000,000. but yet they make the hourly employees take 1/2 their wage cut in pay to $14 per hour. And, I agreed that paying a bonus to executives of a company going bankrupt is absurd. But, the blame for that goes to the shareholders who agreed to those contracts.On the other hand, if they hadn't agreed to them, they probably wouldn't have got anybody to sign on since pretty much all of the top companies work the same way.It still doesn't change the double standard that exists within your comments. Executives make what the foreign executives make... yes. Workers make what the workers of those foreign companies make... no.Quote Â»and you have the balls to say"But, to continue to foster this notion that GM is going broke because the executives make too much is naive and flat out wrong."Yes, I do. If you believe that $36 Million is enough to pull a multi-BILLION dollar corporation out of bankruptcy, then there's little point to this discussion. $36 million is a drop in the bucket to Delphi/GM.The problem is that the typical worker can't relate to the finances of a multi-billion dollar international company, which makes it very easy for union leadership to play the class envy/hate card with management and executives.Again, we can debate whether or not many executives are worth what they are being paid. I've already agreed that, IMHO, many aren't. But, that doesn't change the financial logistics of the matter. Even if the executives weren't being paid at all, Delphi would be going bankrupt, and GM, Ford and Chrysler as parent companies, aren't far behind them.

scherry2 · Post by **scherry2** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:00 am

Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh Â»And, I agreed that paying a bonus to executives of a company going bankrupt is absurd. But, the blame for that goes to the shareholders who agreed to those contracts.DUH!! the judge made that decision. the shareholders are on the bottom rung when they are in bankruptcy. the stockholders don't even have a say in it. don't you read the news reports? I never said 36 million would pull them out of the trouble they are in, and yes 36 million is a "drop in the bucket" but when your bleeding profusely, that "drop in a bucket" makes a difference. and when you add up all those little "drops in a bucket" that all the over paid executives make, it fills alot of barrels. especially when you claim "we're going broke" and blame poor design and engineering on the workers. as for the comment on low wages of foreign workers. $20 per hour paid to Toyota workers is higher than $14 per hour paid to new hires. as for foreign living workers, IE: China and India. since they all want to be like America why not raise their standard of living. pay them more so they don't live in shacks. make them proud to go to work. Mr. Ford did it so he would keep a workforce, now the executives don't care about worker turnover. do you think the D3 are going to get a better vehicle built with a, just over minimum wage, workforce? a guy could sell coffee at Starbucks for more per hour. its all about how much the CEO can line his pockets with. blame the stockholders? they are getting screwed by the executives just as bad as the workers. I owned GM stock I remember the crap dividends it paid. if you offer a poor person any pay they will take it, just ask those in right to work states here in the southern U.S. Quote, originally posted by TJinPgh Â» Even if the executives weren't being paid at all, Delphi would be going bankrupt, and GM, Ford and Chrysler as parent companies, aren't far behind them.you are outta your mind, Delphi was making money when GM spun them off. look up the numbers. GM wanted to buy from other sources but couldn't. they owned Delphi. and globally GM is quite well off. you corporate wannabe types kill me. you only think and idolize about 1 thing. $ and you twist words almost eloquently. most people would almost believe you.

Petrucci914 · Post by **Petrucci914** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:05 am

Quote, originally posted by scherry2 Â»you corporate wannabe types kill me. you only think and idolize about 1 thing. $ and you twist words almost eloquently. most people would almost believe you.It's called capitalism. It works. If you don't like it, move to North Korea. Their economy is booming.

Whelan · Post by **Whelan** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:31 am

I'm still getting a kick out of people talking about executives, shareholders, employees, etc. The reason being I still say as I said above that it all comes down to their core business, selling automobiles. If you don't sell them, then you have no profit. So why would making cars that are unappealing and not up to par like the new Focus for the US be even an idea. It is slower, less amenities, less fit and finish, and compares more with a Hyundai Accent, Elantra, or Kia than it does with a Civic or Corolla. That is a big problem since the Focus used to be up against the other big two. My problem is at this stage, I would rather own a Hyundai than a Ford. I think Mazda and Ford are changing positions, Mazda is becoming a strong competitor with Toyota and Honda, and Ford is moving back with Kia and Hyundai (of which Hyundai in a few more years will be on par with the others mentioned). So again, the basis comes down to not the exec's and their payouts and employee benefits, but from the fact that Ford cannot sell a decent automobile that gets rave reveiws and is the car everyone wants. They are missing the boat and need to really think about only leaving this Focus out for a max of 2-3 years if that and bringing the Euro Focus over or building it here. That is one huge change, but the problem being, that the Euro Focus is meant to compete with the likes of Civic and by the time it gets here, it will be outdated in comparison, a nice car absolutely, but still dated and left behind.

scherry2 · Post by **scherry2** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:22 am

Quote, originally posted by Petrucci914 Â»It's called capitalism. It works. If you don't like it, move to North Korea. Their economy is booming.capitalism only works for the corporation and its executive board and the Korean workers are unionized there too. ooooh something you hate. an economy can't be based on cash. it has to be based on some kind of industry. and north korea and china are communists. go ask your parents about them, since you want to be freinds with them. what I would really like to say to you would get me banned.i'm done.you blame the workers. I blame the design engineers and marketing group.

Petrucci914 · Post by **Petrucci914** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:25 am

Are you saying that the North Koreans have unions? Uh, I don't think so. And I'm not against or for anybody. I'm just telling you that capitalism works. It's not the best system but it's the best out of all the choices we have. And saying an economy can't be based on cash is like saying an engine can't be part of a car. Take some business classes, some marketing classes, and especially some econ classes. Then get back to me.