Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 59

Thread: Mustang and Focus lone Ford car survivors

  1. #1
    Silver Hawk Member 53k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Martinsburg, West Virginia, USA.
    Posts
    5,913

    Mustang and Focus lone Ford car survivors

    I can't seem to find an url that is short enough to copy, and it doesn't work- Google for yourself with "ford stop making cars"
    I thought it was an April Fool's joke, but that's past. Googling the report brings up just about any source with the same headline. Kicker is, they are only talking sedans. The trucks and SUVs are safe.

    Paul Johnson, Wild and Wonderful West Virginia.
    '64 Daytona Wagonaire, '64 Avanti R-1, Museum R-4 engine, '72 Gravely Model 430 with Onan engine

  2. #2
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by 53k View Post
    I can't seem to find an url that is short enough to copy, and it doesn't work- Google for yourself with "ford stop making cars"
    I thought it was an April Fool's joke, but that's past. Googling the report brings up just about any source with the same headline. Kicker is, they are only talking sedans. The trucks and SUVs are safe.
    The same info (including the url) can be found on FTZ (fordtruckzone.com).

    This is a website for people that own/are interested in Ford trucks. I'm a member (BKW) and read it there yesterday.

    The Fiesta and Taurus haven't sold worth a hoot. I'm surprised that Ford is killing the Fusion, because it's always been a good seller.

    The thing that concerns me is, if we have another economic downturn, truck sales will slow down considerably, because people will be buying fuel efficient cars.
    Last edited by WinM1895; 04-26-2018 at 02:00 PM.

  3. #3
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,215
    The passenger car market has been diminishing for a decade and a half now, and the automakers are simply reacting to it as I stated in a post here: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...pping-the-Name

    Ford article here: http://autoweek.com/article/car-news...able-crossover

    Craig

  4. #4
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Article says that the Lincoln Continental and MKZ sedans share platforms with Ford cars.

    So what the hell else it new?

    Every Lincoln since 1961 has shared parts with Ford, ditto Mercury.

    The 1971/77 'Mercury' Capri was imported from Germany, where it was sold as a Ford.

    1979/86 Capri's are 'rebadged' Mustang's.

  5. #5
    Silver Hawk Member Chris Pile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wichita - The Air Capital of the World
    Posts
    6,256
    I also read an article on this today and thought it to be an April Fools joke. But perhaps Ford is onto something - after all, Henry made millions with the Model T (and it's variants). If the folks in Dearborn do well with this, I look for the rest of Detroit and Japan to follow suit. It does seem a little strange to offer multiple flavors of cars from one maker - staggered in $1000 pricing increments to cover all the bases in the market.
    The only difference between death and taxes is that death does not grow worse every time Congress convenes. - Will Rogers

  6. #6
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Pile View Post
    It does seem a little strange to offer multiple flavors of cars from one maker - staggered in $1000 pricing increments to cover all the bases in the market.
    That was 'the norm' 50 years ago with the (once) Big Three.

    It started with Alfred P. Sloan's marketing idea in the creation of General Motors with its five separate brands, and his famous tagline; "A car for every purse and purpose".

    Craig

  7. #7
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by 8E45E View Post
    That was 'the norm' 50 years ago with the (once) Big Three.

    It started with Alfred P. Sloan's marketing idea in the creation of General Motors with its five separate brands, and his famous tagline; "A car for every purse and purpose".

    Craig
    William C. (Billy) Durant founded General Motors in 1908.

    First he bought Buick, but when he bought Oldsmobile, he needed a corporate name. Durant also purchased Oakland (later Pontiac) and Cadillac in 1909.

    Durant was forced out of GM in 1910, then he founded Chevrolet and by trading Chevy stock for GM stock, in 1916 he walked into a GM board meeting and said: "I CONTROL!"

    Durant lost GM in 1920 for good. Alfred P. Sloan of Hyatt Roller Bearing (another company Durant bought) became prez in 1923.
    Last edited by WinM1895; 04-27-2018 at 07:53 AM.

  8. #8
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,215
    Agreed that Sloan was not the founder of GM.

    What Sloan did was successfully and creatively align each autonomous division into marketing sectors that worked until the late seventies when management effectively destroyed it with brand dilution by too much badge engineering and across-the-board engine sharing. In the 1960's there was intercorporate rivalry back then (albeit usually on friendly terms) within all the GM divisions over who's engine was the 'best', 'fastest', etc.

    Craig

  9. #9
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Under Sloan, it was Cadillac - Buick - Oldsmobile - Oakland - Chevrolet.

    But originally (1909), it was Oldsmobile - Buick - Oakland - Cadillac.

    When Henry Ford walked away from the 2nd company he founded (Henry Ford Co.), president Henry Martyn Leland changed the company name, naming it after the founder of Detroit: Antoine dela Mothe Cadillac. The Cadillac Motor Car Co. was born!

    1916, Leland left Cadillac after a dispute with Durant, Leland wanted to build Liberty Aircraft engines for the war effort, but Durant refused because he was a pacifist.

    Leland then founded a new company to build these engines, naming it after his favorite president: Lincoln Motor Co.

    Leland introduced the Lincoln car in 1921, it was a mechanical marvel, but a styling disaster, Lincoln soon went bankrupt.

    In US Bankruptcy Court in 1922, Henry Ford purchased Lincoln for 8 million dollars. Leland planned to remain with Lincoln, but he didn't get along with Henry, so within a few months, Leland departed.
    Last edited by WinM1895; 04-27-2018 at 08:14 AM.

  10. #10
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,215
    You forgot Cartercar.

    Craig

  11. #11
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by 8E45E View Post
    You forgot Cartercar.

    Craig
    No I didn't, I didn't forget the Sheridan or the Samson tractor either. I just left them out.

    Besides these, Durant bought many more companies.

    Durant later said this about the Carter-car. "It was friction drive, who knew if it was to be the next big thing?"

    I just finished reading a book about Durant (I've read it 3 times previously), now I'm reading a book about Walter P. Chrysler.
    Last edited by WinM1895; 04-27-2018 at 08:26 AM.

  12. #12
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,215
    Quote Originally Posted by WinM1895 View Post
    I just finished reading a book about Durant (I've read it 3 times previously), now I'm reading a book about Walter P. Chrysler.
    Don't stop there! This one is also a great read: https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca...Home&ikwidx=21

    Craig

  13. #13
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by 8E45E View Post
    Don't stop there! This one is also a great read: https://www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca...Home&ikwidx=21

    Craig
    Henry has gotten a lot of credit for cars he didn't design. He 'hired' it done, but most people are unaware.

    Henry hired, among other people: Joe Galamb, "Cast Iron Charlie" Sorenson, Childe Harold Wills, who later founded the Wills Sainte Claire Motor Car Co.
    Last edited by WinM1895; 04-27-2018 at 09:01 AM.

  14. #14
    Silver Hawk Member Chris Pile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wichita - The Air Capital of the World
    Posts
    6,256
    now I'm reading a book about Walter P. Chrysler.
    Hope it's CHRYSLER by Vincent Curcio. Fantastic book about a man who rose from a wiper at a local railroad to the presidency of a railway company. While there, he foresaw the coming of the automobile age, and joined David Buick - eventually becoming a captain of industry in 2 different realms.
    The only difference between death and taxes is that death does not grow worse every time Congress convenes. - Will Rogers

  15. #15
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Pile View Post
    Hope it's CHRYSLER by Vincent Curcio. Fantastic book about a man who rose from a wiper at a local railroad to the presidency of a railway company. While there, he foresaw the coming of the automobile age, and joined David Buick - eventually becoming a captain of industry in 2 different realms.
    Yes, this is the book.

  16. #16
    Silver Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC, USA.
    Posts
    5,702
    Walter P. Chrysler was the president of Buick 1912-1920. During most of that time, it was the only GM division that made a profit.

  17. #17
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Skip Lackie View Post
    Walter P. Chrysler was the president of Buick 1912-1920. During most of that time, it was the only GM division that made a profit.
    Chrysler was president, but the real credit belongs to Billy Durant.

    He purchased Buick when it was "dead from the neck up." Then infused it with cash and hired Chrysler to run it.

    If Durant hadn't purchased Buick, it would have died and Chrysler might have ended up working on the railroad his entire life.

  18. #18
    President Member tsenecal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Elko NV
    Posts
    501
    I guess that the company executives, and accountants, know what they are doing, but there still seems to be a fairly strong market for sedans, and if they're not available from one brand, people will jump over to another, along with their brand loyalty.

  19. #19
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Burlington, Ontario, Canada.
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by tsenecal View Post
    I guess that the company executives, and accountants, know what they are doing, but there still seems to be a fairly strong market for sedans, and if they're not available from one brand, people will jump over to another, along with their brand loyalty.
    You would certainly think so. It would appear that Ford sells the majority of police cars in North America so do they expect that all the police departments are going to switch over to their SUVs?

    Stu Chapman

  20. #20
    Silver Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Bay City, Mi., USA.
    Posts
    6,906
    I'm a bit uninformed about the total industry, but Ford has made some pretty good decisions over the last few years. I'd think they have a set number of production facilities and are more in interested maximizing production of the better profit vehicles in them than to continue to produce a larger mix with overall lower profits.

    I don't see where leaving a vehicle type excludes a company from reentering the market at a later date if profitability has improved. Most auto companies are running flex plants that can be changed over to produce currently popular models.

    FCA (Chrysler) has been doing the same thing with less fanfare.
    , ,

  21. #21
    President Member j.byrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,472
    Stu Chapman sir, for a short answer, YES. Most of the officers here and in a couple other areas we've lived have "SUV's".... Personally, I still think that stands for Stupid, Ugly Vehicle, but they are certainly becoming the thing to have, even at our Rentacar facilities. Oh well, my dad thought I was crazy for having SUH ( stupid ugly hair...when I let it grow for a while trying to be a Beatle, ha !) and hot rods, so perhaps things just change to something else "unacceptable" to us aged folks each generation.

  22. #22
    President Member Jeff_H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S RR Valley, ND, USA.
    Posts
    2,320
    I think there are a few not-normally-mentioned reasons for the trend of less cars and more SUV's and trucks...

    Safety standards are part of it. Cars just are crap IMO from a driver point of view due to safety requirements. Poor rear visibility due to the high rears and rear seat head rests. Presume this is from rear crash test standards. This problem extends to small SUV's too. Newer ones have gone to backup cameras, etc to mitigate it but that is no substitute to being able to see what is happening behind you. I've sat in a few later smaller cars and no way I would want to put up with the poor visibility in thick traffic conditions. One of the reasons I bought my 3rd hand 2006 Subaru Forester is the rear end is not so high you cannot see out the back. Took the rear seat headrests out ASAP too (I almost never have passengers).

    Kids car seats. They have gotten too unwieldy to R&R out of normal sedan and most parents have gone to crew cab trucks and large SUV's due to the room and ease of dealing with the child seats.

    The avg. "girth" of the public and ease of in/out.... Nuff said....

    At least in this area, the low ground clearance of cars with plastic ground effects get all broken up from curbs and snow/ice at parking lots in the winter.

    Would be nice, now that the avg vehicle on the road (at least around here) is a crew cab 4dr pickup or a large SUV they'd make the parking space dimensions a bit larger. I've had to walk sideways between vehicles to get between the mirrors at parking lots and the row spacing makes it tough to back out w/o hitting the front of the row behind as folks rears stick out into the lane.

    I'd estimate that only about 30% of my work company lot is cars nowadays.

    Jeff in ND

  23. #23
    Golden Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wappingers Falls, New York, USA.
    Posts
    20,261
    Quote Originally Posted by Stu Chapman View Post
    You would certainly think so. It would appear that Ford sells the majority of police cars in North America so do they expect that all the police departments are going to switch over to their SUVs?

    Stu Chapman
    The large number of cars sold to fleets (police, government, rental, utilities, etc.) are good for advertising, but not so good for the bottom line at the VERY low margin that they are priced at.
    Gary L.
    Wappinger, NY

    SDC member since 1968
    Studebaker enthusiast much longer

  24. #24
    Golden Hawk Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wappingers Falls, New York, USA.
    Posts
    20,261
    I haven't seen any mention of the new GT. Has it been built out already?
    Gary L.
    Wappinger, NY

    SDC member since 1968
    Studebaker enthusiast much longer

  25. #25
    President Member Studedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Perkins, OK, USA.
    Posts
    4,940
    In our area, it seems that Dodge Chargers have replaced Crown Vics as patrol/CID/staff cars, when it comes to 4 door sedans.

    SUVs and trucks are replacing sedans in most municipalities and county departments.

    The highway patrol, which spends most of its time chasing tail lights, as opposed to criminal law enforcement duties, still uses mostly sedans (Chargers) for routine patrol, and SUVs for weights and measures, etc.

    The move towards SUVs makes sense when one realizes how much equipment your typical patrol officer has to have within his/her reach anymore.

    They must be prepared to respond to active shooter incidents, which requires safety and response gear beyond belief. Some calls call for a hand gun, some for a taser, some for a shot gun, some for a rifle. They no longer wait for SWAT to respond, so each patrol officer must have the equipment with them on a daily basis to allow them the ability to enter the scene and neutralize the bad guy.

    Cones/barricades for accident scenes, first aid kits, defibrillators, crime scene investigation kits, radios, computers, radars, switch consoles, the list goes on and on, this is far from all inclusive.

    The officer has on his/her body several items, which include, but not limited to, a sam brown belt, with a gun, a taser, handcuffs, pepper spray, a walkie talkie, body video camera, and body armor that is hot and bulky. They have a brief case full of report forms, and other items that require a desk with several drawers for someone doing the same type of work in an office.

    Today's typical sedan is just not up to the task.

    Dave Lester

  26. #26
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
    I think there are a few not-normally-mentioned reasons for the trend of less cars and more SUV's and trucks...

    Safety standards are part of it. Cars just are crap IMO from a driver point of view due to safety requirements. Poor rear visibility due to the high rears and rear seat head rests. Presume this is from rear crash test standards. This problem extends to small SUV's too. Newer ones have gone to backup cameras, etc to mitigate it but that is no substitute to being able to see what is happening behind you. I've sat in a few later smaller cars and no way I would want to put up with the poor visibility in thick traffic conditions. One of the reasons I bought my 3rd hand 2006 Subaru Forester is the rear end is not so high you cannot see out the back. Took the rear seat headrests out ASAP too (I almost never have passengers).
    So, you consider newer cars to be unsafe, what about older cars? What safety features do Studebakers have? If you were in an accident with a Crew Cab pickup, what vehicle would you consider you would have a better chance of surviving in?

    I don't know diddly about Subaru's, but I do know about FoMoCo vehicles. For example, my 2017 Fusion has, for example: 4 wheel disc brakes, front/side curtain air bags, front/rear crumple zones, backup camera (mandatory in sold new in US vehicles beginning in 2017), passive/active shoulder belts, collapsible steering column.

    What safety features does a Studebaker (or any collector car from the same time frame) have? Safety glass, possibly lap seat belts and front disc brakes (Studebaker: 1963/66), and that's it.

    If I got into an accident with a 3 ton F150 Stupor Crew (I've owned 3 of them [2004/2011/2015] & 2 Titans [2005/2006]), I'd prefer the Fusion over any collector car.
    Last edited by WinM1895; 04-28-2018 at 09:13 PM.

  27. #27
    Speedster Member avanti-hawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    170
    Sedan sales have been slumping for a decade. Even the Honda Accord is losing a big market share. I like the Ford Taurus and have a 2013 ex cop car AWD one. But after driving the 2013 Ford Explorer I can see why so many people prefer it, especially the police. So much more room and better visibility. But much less fuel mileage.
    I usually don't follow the latest automotive trends,such as the SUV craze ( Studebaker driver for example) and will always have a sedan for comfort and best fuel mileage.

  28. #28
    President Member Jeff_H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    S RR Valley, ND, USA.
    Posts
    2,320
    So, you consider newer cars to be unsafe,
    Not sure how you got that from my comments....

    My point was that some of the safety features have gotten in the way of the utility and driving experience and made the smaller vehicles less attractive to drive or use for that reason alone.

    Jeff in ND

  29. #29
    Silver Hawk Member Milaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Milaca, Minnesota, USA.
    Posts
    6,098
    For NASCAR, Ford will replace the Fusion with an Explorer next season.....just kidding, the Mustang will take its place.
    But seriously, an Explorer would be more appropriate being that SUVs are now the norm.

    This talk of Ford ending car production reminds me of them discontinuing production of the Ford Ranger back in 2011. The reason Ford gave for ending production was that its compact pickup didn't sell well enough to be profitable. Rediculous!! The reason the Ranger no longer sold well is that they didn't spend any money to update it. Poor fuel economy because they didn't update it's powertrain technology. It carried on for many years mostly unchanged, like the Model T. If designs remain the same for too many years, customers look elsewhere for something new.

    As a side note, too bad International Harvester discontinued the Scout back in 1980, they would sell like hotcakes today had they been able to continue development & production.

    In the middle of MinneSTUDEa.

  30. #30
    Silver Hawk Member Chris Pile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wichita - The Air Capital of the World
    Posts
    6,256
    The reason Ford gave for ending production was that its compact pickup didn't sell well enough to be profitable.
    That's NOT EXACTLY what they said. The Ranger cost almost as much to produce as the full size trucks, but Ford couldn't ask as much for the smaller truck. So... cut out the small numbers and go with the market leader. It's a bean counter move, but I understood it.
    The only difference between death and taxes is that death does not grow worse every time Congress convenes. - Will Rogers

  31. #31
    Speedster Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Woodinville, WA
    Posts
    375
    "too bad International Harvester discontinued the Scout back in 1980, they would sell like hotcakes today"

    I've driven many thousands of miles in the IH Scout and to be honest, it was a POS. Terrible ride, cable actuated clutch that was prone to breaking / snapping without warning, poor interior heat in winter climes, and all around poor fit & finish. However, the same could be said for many marquees back in 1969.
    "Every man I meet on the street is superior to me in some respect, and from that I can learn."
    R.W. Emerson

  32. #32
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Milaca View Post
    This talk of Ford ending car production reminds me of them discontinuing production of the Ford Ranger back in 2011. The reason Ford gave for ending production was that its compact pickup didn't sell well enough to be profitable. Rediculous!! The reason the Ranger no longer sold well is that they didn't spend any money to update it. Poor fuel economy because they didn't update it's powertrain technology. It carried on for many years mostly unchanged, like the Model T. If designs remain the same for too many years, customers look elsewhere for something new.
    Ford ignored the Ranger for years, introduced in March 1982 as a 1983 model, once the Super Cab was introduced in 1986, that was about it. Engines, grilles were changed, but they basically looked the same from then on.

    Ford wanted to close the Twin Cities (MN) assembly plant, because it was outmoded, the only vehicle being assembled there was the Ranger. Ranger was basically only selling to fleets, so when it was cancelled, the plant was closed.

  33. #33
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Pile View Post
    That's NOT EXACTLY what they said. The Ranger cost almost as much to produce as the full size trucks, but Ford couldn't ask as much for the smaller truck. So... cut out the small numbers and go with the market leader. It's a bean counter move, but I understood it.
    Ford also stated their full-size truck line was getting just as good fuel mileage as the Ranger did, which eliminated that selling feature as well.

    Craig

  34. #34
    Silver Hawk Member 53k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Martinsburg, West Virginia, USA.
    Posts
    5,913
    Ford is bringing back the Ranger. See https://www.ford.com/trucks/ranger/2019/
    Actually, it looks pretty good compared to the GM Canyon and Colorado. It's pretty hard to find either on dealer lots. They just don't sell well (at least in these parts) and they cost almost as much as the full size GM trucks.

    Paul Johnson, Wild and Wonderful West Virginia.
    '64 Daytona Wagonaire, '64 Avanti R-1, Museum R-4 engine, '72 Gravely Model 430 with Onan engine

  35. #35
    Golden Hawk Member 8E45E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    , , Canada.
    Posts
    15,215
    Quote Originally Posted by 53k View Post
    Ford is bringing back the Ranger. See https://www.ford.com/trucks/ranger/2019/
    Actually, it looks pretty good compared to the GM Canyon and Colorado. It's pretty hard to find either on dealer lots. They just don't sell well (at least in these parts) and they cost almost as much as the full size GM trucks.
    Yes they are: http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...ghlight=ranger

    Sales of the Canyorado along with the Tacoma and Frontier are enough to convince Ford there is a big enough market here in North America to offer the Ranger once again.

    Craig

  36. #36
    President Member WinM1895's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Simi Valley CA
    Posts
    769
    Bronco is also being reintroduced. Last offered in 1996.

  37. #37
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Seattle WA, USA.
    Posts
    872
    I would like to include some of my comments that I made in the AACA forum:

    Let me say that I agreed with the govt's assessment that GM was too big to allow to fail. This is not based on politics, or ideology, it is strictly based on economics. GM took the govt loans, paid their obligation early, and moved on.



    Ford got universal kudos for not needing to accept the "bailout," but what did it really cost them. While they were able to secure loans on their own, to stay the course they also were forced to sell Jaguar/Landrover to Tata motors. Alan Mullally, company president, stated that it was time to return to their own luxury marque Lincoln. The selling price was, I believe, around two Billion dollars. This was after Ford had sunk millions into the Coventry plant, to both modernize it, and to attack the quality flaws that had become implicit with the marque. So how did that work out for Ford, not very well. Tata returned management to Coventry, and returned the company to profitability. Enough profit, in fact, to cover all of the purchase price in several years. Ford's emphasis on Lincoln fell flat. While the Towncar served the company well domestically, there was no international marque recognition. By giving up on their only global, luxury marque was a huge mistake. We live in a world economy, and Ford chose not to play.



    Personally I think that Ford made another huge mistake, when the chose to drop the full framed, rear wheeled drive, Crown Victoria based, line of cars. They had been the mainstay for police, taxi and limousine service for two decades. None of their offerings have made them a player in any of these markets.

    Why do I think that this makes any difference, because except for their line of trucks, none of what Ford is able to sell has any profit margin. Higher priced luxury type cars include a huge profit margin, when compared to economy models. Economy models require volume, the likes of which Ford has not been able achieve. Luxury cars can achieve up to about a 50% margin, but Ford has never been able to reclaim any part of that market. Outside of maybe the upper Midwest the market that Ford is leaving, is dominated by the Japanese, Korean and German offerings.

  38. #38
    Golden Hawk Member BobPalma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Brownsburg, IN, USA.(NW suburban Indianapolis)
    Posts
    22,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Hallabutt View Post
    Let me say that I agreed with the govt's assessment that GM was too big to allow to fail. This is not based on politics, or ideology, it is strictly based on economics. GM took the govt loans, paid their obligation early, and moved on.
    With all due respects, Bill; that is a horribly over-simplistic assessment of the General Motors and Chrysler bail-outs.

    I'll not spend hours researching documentation to that effect because it certainly is / was political. People who believe it is the government's business -even "job"- to "save" people and companies from their own arrogance / mismanagement / greed at future taxpayer expense by running up the national debt, most certainly for political reasons, will never be convinced otherwise, facts be damned.

    The country paid an enormous price, both fiscally and morally, for the General Motors' "bailout," in that conventional bankruptcy law was abrogated for political reasons under the nonsensical banner of "too big to fail." Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't, as many investors who lost money on stocks and bonds as a result of that fiscal dance can testify. We aren't a nation of laws if "the government" won't abide by established financial laws....and it did not in those cases, preferring a cleverly-orchestrated end-run around those laws that stiffed investors in the short run and yet-unborn taxpayers in the long run. Period.

    The right to fail is as important as the right to succeed in this country, although I am realistic enough to acknowledge that we are ever so slowly descending into the chaotic abyss where "kinda being" socialists is like "kinda being" pregnant. Either you is or you isn't, as Pogo might say.

    See also: Venezula.

    Now I'll take another blood pressure med and get ready for an enjoyable several days in South Bend. BP
    Last edited by BobPalma; 05-02-2018 at 04:44 PM. Reason: Corrected Bill's name; sorry
    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

    Ayn Rand:
    "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

    G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

  39. #39
    President Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,546
    This is perhaps the greatest book I have ever read concerning the automotive industry.....Walter made his home in Great Neck Long Island.....the Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, was Walters actual estate......beautiful and amazing!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Pile View Post
    Hope it's CHRYSLER by Vincent Curcio. Fantastic book about a man who rose from a wiper at a local railroad to the presidency of a railway company. While there, he foresaw the coming of the automobile age, and joined David Buick - eventually becoming a captain of industry in 2 different realms.

  40. #40
    President Member bob40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Delano, Minnesota, .
    Posts
    3,101
    Shooting from the hip with no research done(it's late and I'm feeling lazy) don't trucks/suv's/utv's/ have different fuel economy standards that the cars will have a harder time making in the future?
    Mono mind in a stereo world

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •