What about the future of Ford Inc??

chuck1959

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make "500", more or less, a trim level on the Galaxie and Fairlane lines, not a model onto itself?

Wasn't the Galixie 500 and Fairlane 500 seperate models?
Also I thught the original name for the 500 was going to be Galaxie 500 in the first place.

nvbanker

"Correct me, if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make "500", more or less, a trim level on the Galaxie and Fairlane lines, not a model onto itself?"

I would never presume to correct you sir; you are right anyway - and it went further than that.

The Fairlane came out in 57, and the Fairlane 500 was fancier.

The Galaxie came out in 59, and the Galaxie 500 was fancier.

The Ford Custom came out in like, 52 I think. In the 60's though, those were the Police cars and Taxis. They actually made though, a Custom 500, that was fancier than the Custom, but below the Galaxie level.

In 1962, the Fairlane became a "compact" car, and was considerably smaller than the Galaxie. It still came with a 260CID V-8 as an option, vinyl seats were available in the 500 also, along with power steering..... Cool huh?

The Fairlane remained around until 68, and Joe Friday and Bill Gannon drove one in Dragnet. Then it went away forever - for now anyway.

So yes, the 500 was originally a trim package. But so was Explorer a trim package on the F-150 originally. So was Ranger at one time, like in 79. Not uncommon for a trim moniker to become an actual model.

Thus is born, the Five-Hundred..... Not quite the hit the Ranger and Explorer were.

mirth

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make "500", more or less, a trim level on the Galaxie and Fairlane lines, not a model onto itself?

Yeah, kind of like the GTO was a trim level on the Tempest. Anyone remember the Tempest?

chuck1959

Yes I had a 62 Tempest

nvbanker

I remember the Tempest. My Uncle bought a bunch of them in 61 for his business. Tiny, Tiny wheels on those cars....

marsha7

but I had the luxury LeMans version IIRC...I think that meant I had vent windows...

It had a little 4 cyl engine and a 2 speed rear auto transaxle...when there was snow on our hill, most of the cars would pull off the side...with the weight over the rear driving wheels, I just drove up to the top...

I also had an AM radio without preset buttons...I found another FANCIER model that had 5 push button preset radio stations (AM only, don't think it had FM) and I swapped radios...man, was I the cat's meow for a couple of years...I could push buttons to change my Top 40 stations...

chuck1959

Years ago when I had one and it needed tires. I wanted to go back to the original tires. Having a long search, come to find out tires for a 60's Beetle were exactly the same size!They were 15 inchers and skinny.

nitromax

Now that some egghead has decided that Alliteration, not quality cars sells cars, every Ford model has to start with an F. Five Hundred was brought back.

Personally, though I'm not in the market for one, Fill, I like Five Hundred MUCH more than I like Fusion or Focus. And I think the Alliteration thing is just stupid and limiting. Just in case Bill is watching.


You know what I'm starting to hate?
All of the companies are adapting a "signature" grill on their vehicles. I understand the concept and why they do it but I just feel it limits the style that a car can have.

If you disagree with me just consider what the new Mustang would look like with the new Ford 3-slat signature grill.
:P
yuk!

mschmal

If you disagree with me just consider what the new Mustang would look like with the new Ford 3-slat signature grill.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH!

You aren't suppose to give away the secret new look for the Refreash in 2009!

Mark

chuck1959

Oh God is that what's going to happen to the 500?

nitromax

You aren't suppose to give away the secret new look for the Refreash in 2009!

buh...buh....buwahhhh!
(that's the best I can do since there are no emoticons showing a car throwing up.

:-)

nvbanker

"just consider what the new Mustang would look like with the new Ford 3-slat signature grill."

Have to agree with ya there! They wouldn't be THAT stupid, would they???

I like the DNA approach to lines like Lincoln, with the waterfall signature grille (which they are now dropping for the 61 Continental eggcrate grille look), but for a broad brand like Ford, makes no sense.

dpat

Doesn't the 2006 Accord loook similar to the Accord of 10 years ago, or is my smoking weed just gone bad over time??? :confuse: :confuse: :shades:

Well, you might want to put that doobie down. Honda reworked the exterior styling of the accord for 2003, 2005, and 2006. People didn't like the rear end. But, of course, when honda does that, it's good business practice, but when ford does, it means they're desperate.

nvbanker

WSJ today, page A-3 under GM Health-Care;

Ford is idling production in two more plants, owning to extra capacity in other plants. The plants are simply not needed. What does the UAW say? "Once again, dedicated hourly and salaried Ford workers are paying the price for he company's sliding market share." Once again, the Union takes NO responsibility for that sliding market share, be it quality or price derived. Just when I thought they were getting it over at GM, the UAW comes through again with a completely shallow, predictable and hopelessly myopic statement.

The closing of 7 plants by Ford should be giving the UAW great cause for concern, not just that another 4300 employees will be furloughed, but that Ford will continue to lose market share unless their cars are better, and cheaper both at the same time. Management has responbility here, no question at all. But so do they. They take none. Not being supportive of their employer will not help! Soon, there will be no jobs for more of their members as the slide continues, unless the UAW and management will work together to motivate their employees to take such pride in the product, they build them right every time. Every employee on the line should have the ability to stop the line if they see a problem, and correct it. The engineers have to design a car that can be efficiently built. It has to go together fairly easily on the line, and things have to fit right. Then, there's the art department, something the Union Workers cannot help, but Bill can......

Make everything as drop dead gorgeous as the Mustang, build it right and for the right price point, and there would be no stopping Ford. Plant closures would stop.

I know it's easy to say, hard to do, but I see the Union as an obstructionist here, not a partner. And I really thought they were getting it. Clearly, they don't.

chuck1

"know it's easy to say, hard to do, but I see the Union as an obstructionist here, not a partner."

Your post was very well put, and I agree with it totally.

Your point about the union is right on. As a matter of fact, I consider just about ALL UNIONS unneeded and obstructionist.
I had a sister-in-law (this was about 10 years ago) working for a major airline making $17.00/hr cleaning toilets under union wages. Needeless to say-that airline is now out of business....

euphonium

That's not news. Ford announced the closing of many plants several weeks ago including Wixom. Regarding the obstructionist attitude, it is called "Union Mentality" and is throughout the union movement from coal workers to lumberjacks, miners, and papermakers.

Over 50 years ago when I worked Summers in a pulp plant/paper mill, it was SOP for the Machine Tender to foul up his machine just before the shift change to give the oncoming crew something to do.

Pride in Craftsmanship? What is that? :P

john_324

It's a delicate balance. Unions provide some very good benefits to our economy...like the efficiencies derived from collective bargaining, a vehicle for protecting the rights of workers and the anchor for a strong middle class.

Problem is, collective arrangements of any sort tend to develop problems of free riders, rent-seeking, etc. which leads to a downward spiral of self-interest and decay. At the extreme, this is why communism never actually works in a meaningful way in real life.

In this case, there are a bunch of corrosive effects. One, union leadership in the U.S. has long been interested not in the workers it represents, but rather the power, wealth and influence that flows from this leadership position. Two, the average union member faces a nasty choice: either on principle resign from the Union, knowing he'll likely be rewarded by a pay cut or being fired, or go along with a system that is killing his company, but will put food on the table now. Add to this his view of the ridiculous compensation that the executives get for running the company into the ground, and it's not hard to see why the unions persist in their thinking.

I'm not excusing the unions in any way here. They've got to reform, otherwise as people have said there will be no jobs to unionize. But as the economists say, there's a big problem of incentives here that needs to be fixed.

mschmal

Both Norfolk and Twin Cities opened for production in 1925. Since Ford is trying to restructure its plants to be Flexible. It seems that some plants would be unneeded no matter what the market share is.

Ford probably felt that these 2 older plants just were not worth updating to Flexible Manufacturering and hence they are closed.

Mark.

chuck1

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-04-13-ford-plants_x.htm

nippononly

Just to set the record straight, when Honda did that it was ALSO desperate. Accord sales had slumped like 20% in less than 2 years with the big bulbous Buick butt (like that alliteration?! :-P).

Now 2003 doesn't count - that was just the normal model turnover.

gus14

Does any one have any more info. on Nick Twork's comment in the May DIESEL POWER mag. on "We have identified unacceptably high-warranty repair rates(with) 6.0L diesel engine - equipped '04 model-year Super Duty trucks and " We have dedicated significant resources to identify ways to improve the performance of the 6.0L diesel engine."
It says to call the 1-800-FORD hot line and I did today, they said they know nothing about it.

I have had 5 Ford trucks over the years and they have surely disappointed me with this diesel engine! It has gone from 17/18 mpg down to 12. It continues with oil leaks that they can't solve after weeks of being in the dealership.

I hope they really do have a plan to resolve the performance and restore the engine to the original output,
that is why I traded the 7.3L in for the 6.0L.

Ford better prove they can restore customer satisfaction and real dependable Quality if they are going to continue in the market place.

chuck1959

Accord sales had slumped like 20% in less than 2 years with the big bulbous Buick butt (like that alliteration?!

I couldn't have said better myself!

chuck1

Accord sales had slumped like 20% in less than 2 years with the big bulbous Buick butt (like that alliteration?!

Yea, but how many of those have bought a Ridgeline?

nvbanker

Communication is King at these large corporations, that's for sure.

My insiders @ Ford, tell me that the engineers are well aware of this problem with the 6.0L, and are trying to find a new Diesel partner, severing their contract with Navistar, who built both the 7.3L and the 'better' 6.0L for them. Meanwhile, beware of the pre-05 models, I guess.

chuck1

"Ford Executive Vice President Mark Fields said his company plans to offer one high-performance Mustang and one high-performance truck every year going forward. After introducing the new Shelby-inspired Mustang GT350-H, which can be rented at selected Hertz locations, Fields told a horde of reporters that he felt that high-performance vehicles were an important part of establishing a car company's brand image."

YEA, BRING 'EM ON. THAT'S WHAT THE WORLD NEEDS WITH $3.00/GALLON GAS.
UNBELIEVABLE!! TURN OFF THE LIGHTS AT FORD WHEN THE LAST ONE LEAVES.....

toomanyfumes

I dunno... no matter what the price of gas, there will always be a market for performance cars, and capable trucks. Not to mention the marketing advantages of introducing vehicles like these. And if they're based on existing models, development costs are low.

euphonium

According to my records, on 9 April 1958, I bought 9.8 gallons for $3.90! That's 39.9 for Premium.
Today, 15 April 2006, Premium is $2.81 a gallon. That is only a little over seven times increase.

If your income has not increased at least seven times since 1958, the real problem is not the price of gas!

nvbanker

It would be brilliant if Toyota Racing did it though...

chuck1

Maybe not, but how much cash reserves is Toyota sitting on?
They can afford to throw money away, Ford is not in that position.

nvbanker

That's for damn sure.... Only Bill and his family personally have any money to blow.

scottmandrake

Last I checked toyota is not doing much better than ford. But to be on topic, I think that if ford makes its mustang fuel flexible it will be as prosperous as ever. If fuel economy is such a big deal than why not make it so it runs off of higher mixtures of ethanol? All cars will be going that way shortly.
keep it custom
keep it classic
steve

nvbanker

Ford has had Flexible Fuel Vehicles since before 2000. The Explorer can be had in an FFV version, which is the same engine as the Mustang 6 has - it's not hard, it who wants it? Very very few people want it. Ford can make as many as people want to buy....

chuck1959

Don't ethanol cars get less gas mileage?

nvbanker

Yes, and less power. About 15%. There is less energy in ethanol than in gasoline.

chuck1959

So is the only advantage is less pollution? But if makes us use more is it really a good idea?

I am at odds if this or the hybrids are the answer. IMO less use of gasoline is. We are going to have to be more like Europe and not have big gas guzzlers. I know that bigger is better is the American way....Maybe so at one time but things are a light speed different now. IMO Americans need to think about what is more important dependence on the Arab nations and paying a big price or scaling things down and go back to depending on us the USA, like we USED to.

nippononly

with ethanol besides the obvious security concerns of being so dependent on the Middle East for oil is that it is CO2 neutral - growing the corn (or whatever the source material is) consumes as much CO2 as the ethanol's later burning creates. But oil? No such luck!

Ethanol actually pollutes slightly more, I think, in terms of smog-forming emissions. It naturally has a higher octane rating than refined gasoline.

mopowah

Ford is expecting their SVT division to sell 200k units per year. They need the SVT name for marketing purposes mostly. They will still be relying on Focus/Fusion/500 + Trucks/SUV's to make their money. If they can attract a few more customers through SVT then all the better.

Also, I think people tend to exaggerate the cost of gas on our economy. I'm not saying I want gas prices to go up, but when it goes up 20 cents, it really has a negligible effect on your average household expenses.

IE:

If you drive 15k miles/year and you average 22 mpg. You would use about 680 gallons of gas.

680 x 2.50=$1700

now let's say gas goes up to $3.00 (which, it will)

680 x 3.00=$2040

A difference of $340/year or an average of about $28 more a month for gas.

chuck1

This has been beaten to death. The truth of the matter is that most people buy another car based on "emotional issues" and not on your formula. If someone drives a Suburban (I just talked to someone who does and he was now spending $90.00 week at California prices) and can spend $40.00 tank to fill up a Ford focus, that is where emotion comes in.

Gas has gone up a FULL DOLLAR/GAL since Mr. Bush has taken office, there are people who this is really affecting. I will drive any where I want because I can afford it - a lot of people need to make a tank of gas last as long as possible.

mopowah

people buy cars based on an emotional response. My point was basically that maybe people should try and be a bit more rational about it...not that that will ever happen.

chuck1959

I will drive any where I want because I can afford it - a lot of people need to make a tank of gas last as long as possible.

I'm glad for you! But you still shouldn't demiss the fact that the gas SHOULDN'T even be that expensive in the first place!! It really pisses me off that the oil companies are raking all of us over the coals because they know they can! Especially since a lot of people will no downsize and continue to drive these gas guzzling large SUVS!...Now really do people need an SUV that big???

nvbanker

" Americans need to think about what is more important dependence on the Arab nations and paying a big price or scaling things down and go back to depending on us the USA, like we USED to."

I don't disagree with that, chuck, however, if the greenies would let us drill here in the USA, we wouldn't have to buy crude from the Arabs.

nvbanker

"My point was basically that maybe people should try and be a bit more rational about it..."

Exactly, and thanks for putting a common sense pencil to it mopowah...... It's not time to panic - yet.

marsha7

would let us drill here (and, don't forget, we haven't built a refinery since Carter, but the number of drivers has gone up by millions...we need refinery capacity, too), and we combined that with ethanol (which comes from corn, which we have more than we know what to do with...if we stop sending it overseas to poor countries and just let them starve, we can be energy independent) we might lower the cost of a gallon to $1.00 to $1.50...then, if ethanol gets slightly less fuel mileage, I could handle it...and the corn we send overseas probably never gets past the crroked gov't dictators anyway, so nobody will starve that wasn't starving before...

A win-win-win for us, and us is all that matters IMHO...

rockylee

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060418/UPDATE/604180403/- 1148/AUTO01

Rocky

chuck1

"but the number of drivers has gone up by millions...we need refinery capacity, too),"

It's even worse in California. In addition to no new refinery, we have a "special blend" and it's against the law to import gasoline from states such as Nevada and Arizona. So if we have a refinery go down, it's just too bad!

rockylee

Chuck,

How much is a gal. of gas in Cali where you live ?

Rocky

chuck1

"if the greenies would let us drill here in the USA, we wouldn't have to buy crude from the Arabs."

I agree. I had a young man come by my house a couple of years ago and wanted me to sign a petition against additional drilling in that national park in Alaska. I said that we need more domestic oil and if they found oil in my cul-de-sac they could drill.

Well maybe not my street---but you get the idea!!

rockylee

While your idea sounds good, but did you know Chuck that 30% of the domestic drilled oil, which doesn't sound like alot goes on the open market for sale ? :mad:

Rocky

nippononly

Chuck lives, but here in the Bay Area my local gas just reached $2.90/gallon. They are saying that here locally gas will probably be around $3.50/gallon this summer. Wow. 14 or 15 months ago we were paying $1.70 or something like that. And I think this is just a sniff of things to come.

And c'mon everyone - no-one really believes that we could eliminate oil imports by drilling in the U.S., right? That is pure fantasy.

Hey, back on topic, I was quite fired up reading reviews of the new Fiesta in Europe. Talk about gas savings - why the heck don't they bring that model over? They are so fearful when it comes to cars, yet they will jump right into doomed-from-the-start projects like the Expedition EL. The Fiesta is a really great car, by all accounts. Oh yeah, Ford, bring the European Focus while you're at it - g'head! :-)

Both would sell well, I think. Especially if gas stays above $3/gallon after the summer ends.

rockylee

Do you really want to drive that unsafe sardine can ? :P I personally will pass. I'm all about saving a few bucks at the pump, but that's a little absurd. :surprise: I'll take a Saab 4 banger with a turbo and a new 2 stage hybrid engine and save a few bucks and stay alive if an idiot crashes into me.

Rocky