it took them five years to redo the Explorer? Why so long? That may be part of the problem. Geez, that predates 9/11.
I think the future for Explorer and all truck-based SUVs is small: they will go back to the sales levels of the truck-based models in the late 80s, as butch-looking, high-riding, 5- and 7-seat crossover wagons take over their hold on the market, and the few people who need to tow will be the only ones left buying BOF.
It's a very good thing Ford has decided to keep the Freestyle a while - now they should butch up the looks and get the 3.5L in there just as fast as they can.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Zephyr (MK Z) will get the 3.5L first (big deal), then it will slowly make its way around the fleet. The Freestyle is actually a great machine, but wagons just don't go yet. The Magnum is dead in the water too.
Yeah, I know. I still think you give the Explorer an unnecessarily bad rap though. I know Toyota's stronger, but the Explorer has the best design in the industry with the IRS and folding flat 3rd row. The 4 Runner's back seat is for todder's at best. I like Toyota reliability also, I have one, but the Explorer isn't a piece of total crap like you say.....on that, I can't agree.
You think there is actually a plan? They let SVT die by having it burn itself out on the GT and then forgetting to restaff when everyone moved on or retired. One finished model, nothing in the works and no staff equals "oh well, I guess we don't have a Special Vehicles Team anymore"
Quit stressing, those guys can be re-assembled anytime when they have the money to devote to it, but SVT never made them any profit, it was a halo project - worthwhile, but expensive. In tough times, it has to go - but can come back quickly if things turn around quickly. Right now, limited resources must be deployed to projects of high potential and profit to save the company, or Ford will be dead to us all.
That's cause Ford no longer knows how to build performance cars/trucks > we must look to suppliers to do this for us. Were totaly at Roush's (and others) mercy when it comes to performance. All the hands on engineers are gone, getting ready to go, or are making better door handles. :sick:
Mazda's year over year sales for Feb are UP 23% over last year and year to date sales for Feb are up 20% over last year.
Leading the sales board is the Mazda3 which is built on the same platform as the new Euro Ford Focus. A platform that Ford says is 2 expensive for our Focus.
I hope the morons at Ford that made that call are ones getting canned in the upcoming layoffs.
I wonder if Ford even understands the US car market.
It should be obvious by now that you have to build DISTINCTIVE UNIQUE product.
The Focus FAILS completely to stand out in anyway unless you are looking at the 5 door hatch which is virtually non-existant.
GMPD otherwise known as General Motors Performance Division is responsible for the "V" series of Cadillac, GXP for Pontiac, SS for Chevrolet, Redline for Saturn, etc.
It's (GMPD) also is posted on some of their engines.
Is it connected to/the successor of Street Legal Performance (SLP)?
I remember reading awhile back that GM bought them to bring them in-house (in recent years, SLP would do the tuning for GM to create the Camaro SS and Firebird WS-6 package if I remember correctly).
part of this is that we are all watching our auto industry wither away, and they do not seem to do much about it...new vehicles with underpowered engines, when their Japanese competitors are putting 240/260+ HP V6 engines in their little cars, and keepin mpg over 25...union contracts that pay people not to work and yet they wonder where the profits are going...keeping plants open when it is obvious that they are the ones creating their own problem with overcapacity...workers, who one would expect might try and make the best cars possible, making cars with doors that do not fit, headlights that do not work properly, door handles that are impossible to use (also the fault of designers who must be design-school dropouts)...now, let's make it worse...
The 30,000 exployees who will finally be discarded (probably half of them in the Job Bank getting paid to do nothing), with nothing to lose, will probably start sabotaging the products, making them with more (intentional) mistakes and quality cuts, so that an entire year's worth of production will be suspect...after all, with nothing to lose, possibly no pension, they will do nothing but mark time and make junk until they receive their pink slip...
And, all their Japanese and Korean competitors seem to do is build brand new plants, design their cars with closer and better tolerances, and take market share by the day...
Truthfully, I do not believe that the J & K competitors are actaully taking market share away...I now believe that Ford and GM are doing everything in their power to hand it to them on a silver platter...
half of them in the Job Bank getting paid to do nothing),
Your right on! That job bank is a ridiculous idea. A policy that states were are going to pay people not to work. (The average cost per person 100K with benefits.)
Then the retired GM people complaining when GM wants them to pay just $700.00 A YEAR to cover their family's health insurance.
The people that work for Ford and GM, their retired folks, all need to spend some time in THE REAL WORLD OF EMPLOYMENT!!
In defense of the UAW, I think the job bank was a result of predatory tactics by the Big 3. Not exactly sure of the history, but my understanding is that the Big 3 would hire people for a popular model, then fire them when that model got old and wasn't selling so well. When the factory picked up again, they would hire new people (at entry level wages) to fill those positions. Or, they would move the jobs out of the country.
If you abuse your workforce, they will abuse you back. The manufacturers used to have the upper hand. Now they don't.
The Jobs Bank was first negotiated in the 1980s. Ford and GM wanted to modernize their factories and revise their production techniques to cuts costs and improve quality. If properly implemented, this would lead to fewer employees. The UAW was understandly not thrilled about this equation (fewer employees = less union dues = less power for the union), so the Jobs Bank was created to provide a sort of "holding tank" for displaced blue-collar workers.
If anything, the Jobs Bank represents the arrogance of Ford and GM at that time. The feeling among management undoubtedly was that the implementation of new production techniques, along with the introduction of new vehicles, would lead to a rebound in sales, and the Japanese would be "pushed back into the Pacific." With the increased sales would come a need for more workers.
Unfortunately, it hasn't quite worked out that way over the past 20 years...hence the mess we now see today.
Thanks for the background info. However, I really don't care how or why it was originally setup, at 100K a person this is one of the things (among many) that will literally HAND OVER the industry to the Japanese and Koreans.
"this is one of the things (among many) that will literally HAND OVER the industry to the Japanese and Koreans."
Getting off topic for a second, but... is that really such a bad thing?
I mean, the implants are adding jobs here. They're adding them in states where we really need those jobs. And the implants seem to have a better business strategy than the domestics.
"Getting off topic for a second, but... is that really such a bad thing?"
You bring up an interesting point. In one way you could argue that the real dollars are going back to Japan and Korea. On the other hand the paycheck the workers get are adding to our economy here.
It's just seems like a sad thing when an industry we were great in, goes to the wayside. Much like the steel, textile, and others that have for the most part gone over seas....
of the excess workers is union featherbedding...whereas you only need one janitor to clean up the work of, say, 15 workers, the union made sure it was one janitor for every 5 workers...if you REALLY boil it down, the automakers have blown billions of $$$ over the last 40 years by having more workers to do less work, and when the work slows down, you suddenly find that nobody has anything to do...this is the same as a school system hiring too many teachers, and when the kids grown up but are NOT replaced with new children, the system has too many teachers, and you need to fire some, regardless of tenure...
Nobody likes to deal with change...it seems cruel, but economics is cruel...if you do not need the workers, get rid of them and stop making the companies sound like a socialist by having them "keep" the workers they do not need...it means that folks will have to sell their homes and move somewhere else to find work...too bad, as there should NEVER be any guarantees to anyone, unless you want to work/live in Cuba or China...
Same thing with teachers...I don't care if they have put down roots and joined all the civic organizations...if the systten has no students and does not need the teachers, they are fired...simple as that...no obligation to "find them work"...change can be painful, and that is why we have all this extra cost built into our education system or the way we make cars...
We keep you while we need you, and discard you when we don't...if you cannot deal with that, then find a different kind of job...you owe us a fair day's work, and we owe you a fair day's wages...at the end of the day, we are even...
Like it or not, workers have always been, and will always be, expendable...there was only one Henry Ford, but he had 100,000 workers making Model Ts and As...Henry could not be replaced, but any of his workers were quite expendable...this is how it will always be, and outsourcing is proving it daily...if you perform an unskilled job, do not be surprised if I can find someone elsewhere to do it cheaper...if the quality is equal, no reason to pay someone $35/hour if someone can do it for $5/hour...
Minimum wage???...bah...most entry level jobs are not even worth the minimum wage...do you think for one minute that the kid who cuts lettuce at McDonald's, or sweeps the floor is actually worth $5/hour???...just because we have a minimum wage does not mean that simple jobs are WORTH that much, just that the law says they have to be paid that much...if the free market really existed, lettuce cutters would be paid $1/hour...
Entry level jobs are not for making money, they are for teaching folks the responsibility of working and showing up like a responsible adult...would you really pay $10/hour for someone to put cans of tuna on the shelves of WalMart grocery???...do you really feel that the job is worth more than $1/hour???...just because the kid is breathing???...that is why the union movement will end in the next 5 years, because they demand ridiculous wages for some of the most simplistic jobs in America...not ALL of the jobs are simplistic, mind you, but placing a tire/wheel combo on 5 lug nuts does not exactly require a college degree, or even a high school diploma...
Someone should post your picture with your last message in every fast food restaurant and see how long you can go eating spit burgers Following your ideology - you should get exactly the same pay as these poor lettuce cutters, because as far as I am concerned you're full of it pal! Following the same ideology the CEO's , Doctors and lawyers should all get $10/hour, as they are only 10 times as important as the kid who wipes the floor. It is the corporate greed of the upper management and the stock market punks that are killing our industries, not the workers. Go back and get another BMA, so that you can educate us on the benefits of outsourcing to India and China.
Getting off topic for a second, but... is that really such a bad thing?
I mean, the implants are adding jobs here.
There are a couple of problems with this. First is that although they are adding jobs here, they aren't adding enough jobs. The economic hit to America would be pretty huge.
Also, one of the reasons that the US has privatized health care is because of the Big 3 (or Detroit 3 now if you prefer). GM alone pays health care for 1 million Americans. You think health care is a crisis now, wait until Detroit goes under.
The imports cherry picked the market and with some help from oblivious Detroit execs, they have obtained a large part of the US market. But they merely replaced jobs they took away from the big 3 and their suppliers. The imports did not create great numbers of new jobs. It's like the new jobs created during the last 16 years of presidencies: they always talk about new jobs and credit the president but they don't mention that manufacturing jobs were lost and exported and that the replacement jobs are service jobs primarily burger-flipping and corner drugstores all at minimum wages.
Actually, the imports are not "adding" jobs over here. They are hiring displaced workers in most cases. And unfortunately, not enough of them. Last year, I read the results of a study that stated; over the past 5 years, the domestic auto industry (including suppliers) lost 100,000 employees. The foreign transplants only added 25,000 jobs in the US during the same timeframe. So, three-quarters of our domestic autoworkers ended up in new careers.
"They're adding them in states where we really need those jobs."
What about the states where a domestic plant closed. Most of the import factories are not in the same state where a domestic plant closed. Also, have you heard how much money these states are offering the foreign companies to build a plant in their state? Why wouldn't you build a plant when the state will give you almost as much in concessions as it's going to cost to build the plant?
Our country is [non-permissible content removed]-backwards for allowing these foreign companies to come into the USA and do this while our own companies are closing plants and laying off Americans. Also, when we try to build something in their country, do you think we are getting similar concessions? Not even close.
Then, as in the case of Toyota and their new truck plant in Texas (the heart of the truck market) to tell Americans that their truck is the official truck of Texas and it's as American as Texas is. What a bunch of crap. It is and always will be a foreign truck assembled in the USA.
"It's just seems like a sad thing when an industry we were great in, goes to the wayside. Much like the steel, textile, and others that have for the most part gone over seas...."
You are right on the money. But, there is a solution. Buy a GM or Ford vehicle. Except for those with exquisite tastes for Beemers, Benzs and japanese luxury models, GM and Ford have produced some very competitive cars and trucks.
One of the major news publications printed an article that was titled "Are Domestic Vehicles Really That Bad?" When you look at dependability studies, sales satisfaction and service satisfaction scores, they are not that bad. They're actually better than many imports. But, the perception to many Americans is that they are not as good.
The goal of the domestic automakers is to convince the "domestic defectors" to buy one of their products. Fusion and Milan are very competitive with import vehicles in their segment. Five Hundred, Montego, Lucerne and Impala are very competitive in their segments. Mustang is a hands down winner, as is the Pontiac Solstice. The new line up of GM SUVs are selling well. The new Explorer is by far the best Explorer ever made. (I just bought one.) Freestyle is constantly chosen as one of the best family vehicles because of its roominess, safety and fuel economy. And the full-size truck market is owned by the domestics. It's tough to beat an F-150 Crew Cab! Why would anyone want to buy a japanese full-size truck when America invented the pick-up truck and have been doing them right for so many years?
We, Americans can save GM and Ford by giving them an objective shot at our business. Unfortunately, many don't care anymore.
Did we weep for the loss of jobs when the door to door sales model went the way of the dodo? Do we weep for the people who lost money when 8 tracks went south?
Auto production in North America has not dropped. We've produced just as many cars in recent years as we did the years prior. How is this possible? Because the imports are picking up the slack.
Do they hire as many workers as the domestics? Honestly, I don't know. If they don't, why should we fault them? If they have a more efficient process for building the same number of cars using fewer workers, that's progress. You can't stop progress. If you don't take advantage of it, someone else will. And they'll put you out of business.
To address the remarks about states giving incentives to companies who build auto plants, simply think about what would have driven them to make those deals. Would the state leaders have made those deals if the picture was so rosy that they didn't need it? Nope. The deals have been profitable for the states as well as the implant manufacturers.
"You are right on the money. But, there is a solution. Buy a GM or Ford vehicle. Except for those with exquisite tastes for Beemers, Benzs and japanese luxury models, GM and Ford have produced some very competitive cars and trucks."
I traded in my '02 XLT Explorer for an '05 4Runner, there is NO COMPARISON in quality. I could go on and on about the issues it had, but they are well documented on the Explorer and Explorer problems board.
Your right, I DON'T CARE. The reasons that GM is in bad shape is called the Malibu, Alero, Aztec, Grand Am, just about the entire Buick line, etc.
And for Ford, not re designing the Ranger, not bringing over the European Focus, releasing the 500 with a motor too small, etc.
"Why would anyone want to buy a japanese full-size truck when America invented the pick-up truck and have been doing them right for so many years?"
Toyota has spent the last three years in Texas talking to Texans about their pickup trucks. There is a FULL SIZE Tundra coming out soon, that will be built in Texas. I have a feeling they are going to get it right....big time!
So there goes the America truck market share down the tubes.....
I certainly agree that corporate greed and the ridiculous golden parachutes are a problem...but that does not change the fact that if the gov't did not put a floor under wages, the lettuce cutter would be paid much less...the purpose of entry level jobs is to teach responsibility for adulthood, not support a family of five...
And, if one DOES have a family of five, and all they can do is cut lettuce, does their circumstance make it worth $20/hour, just because they need that much???...of course not...entry level means just that...no skills needed, training in under a day...
If not for the unions, placing wheels on cars does not require years of training, either...if the companies had the guts to tolerate a strike for a year, we would see how fast workers would come crawling back to work for $10/15 per hour...heck, ask an auto worker if THEY would pay someone $35/hour to clean their house, the same janitorial job as cleaning the shop floor???...I would bet they would never pay more than$10 hour, which is probably what the job may be worth...
>Like it or not, workers have always been, and will always be, expendable...there was only one Henry Ford, but he had 100,000 workers making Model Ts and As...Henry could not be replaced, but any of his workers were quite expendable...this is how it will always be, and outsourcing is proving it daily...if you perform an unskilled job, do not be surprised if I can find someone elsewhere to do it cheaper...if the quality is equal, no reason to pay someone $35/hour if someone can do it for $5/hour...<
You bring up an excellent point, marsha7 - Henry was not expendable, as has been proven by the history of Ford. Then again, he was the worst thing for the company in the latter days of his life, as he wouldn't change with the world. The UAW constantly laments the salaries of the CEOs, I suppose they think any journeyman could run GM or Ford. Guess what, they can't. Now, the CEOs may run them badly, and if they do, rest assured, the stockholders will hold them accountable and they'll be fired. Will they go hungry, no.... certainly not. But they have advanced degrees and have climbed their way to the top to get the job, they have some abilities.
The CEO is not always expendable, the worker bees are. It's the law of survival, and it will always be so.
"So there goes the America truck market share down the tubes....."
You have got to be kidding!
Ford has sold over 900,000 F-Series a year for past couple of years. They are outpacing last year with January and February sales. The Toyota plant in Texas can only produce around 300,000 vehicles.
I'm really surprised that it's taken Toyota three tries to get the truck close to competing with Ford, GM and Dodge.
But, there is no way Toyota will ever dominate the full-size truck market. The F-Series truck is too good and Ford will not sit back and let Toyota take its market share.
You are comparing an '02 model with an '05 model. The difference between the '02 and '05 Explorer are night and day. And the '06 Explorer is much better than the '05 model.
I've driven the '06 Explorer and '06 4Runner and there is no comparison with ride and comfort, the Explorer blows away the 4Runner. As far as quality goes, the improvements from '02 to '06 are substantial.
It's too bad that you don't care. I hope that not everyone shares your sentiments.
"I think this is going to go down as "famous last words!""
Come on, Tundra sales were a third of F-Series sales last year. You are also looking at a demographic of truck buyers that are a good portion of "good old boys" who would rather die than to drive a japanese vehicle.
I saw a picture of the Toyota plant in Texas while it was being built that showed the trucks they were using on the job site. They were all Ford trucks.
Actually, the imports are not "adding" jobs over here. They are hiring displaced workers in most cases. And unfortunately, not enough of them. Last year, I read the results of a study that stated; over the past 5 years, the domestic auto industry (including suppliers) lost 100,000 employees. The foreign transplants only added 25,000 jobs in the US during the same timeframe. So, three-quarters of our domestic autoworkers ended up in new careers.
You are proving a very important point with your statement. The point is that Domestic Car manufacturers are not efficient and are over staffed. I think that you will agree that the total number of cars made in USA has increased not decreased in the last 10 years. I think that you will also agree that car sales lost by Domestics were gained by Transplants.
This means that Transplants are able to build more cars with less people. I mean if 100,000 jobs were lost and 25,000 jobs were gained, then Transplants needed 75,000 less people to build the same number of cars. Now I can see why Detroit is doing so poorly. Any company that needs 100,000 people to do the job of 25,000 people will sooner of later go out of buissness.
What I don't see if why this is bad for American economy. As you stated 3/4 of displaced workers ended up in new carriers. That means that they are also adding to American Economy, where as before they were working to build the same number of cars as are now built by 1/4 of the people. Now they are doing new things which were not done before. Remember American economy is the total sum of all production.
I am a bit confused at what constitutes a model's success or failure in regard to production numbers. Ford states that the New Mustang is a major success because it is in high demand. It has produces 80,000 more 2005 models than in 2004. But, in 2004 the production number was 149,089 and 2005 was 192,000 after the later supposedly 80,000 additional units added to meet the demand. Using these numbers I find only a difference of 42,911. Now, I know there are still 2005 units around because local dealers are attempting to unload these mostly V6 models. I have no numbers on the 2006 model year but, dealers also have ample units on the lot of both V6 and 8 models available. This of course is a far cry from the initial 417,000 units produced and sold in the first 12 months of the 1964-65 production run. Are these low numbers considered a sales success in today's market-place? If so, it doesn't take much to produce a "so-called" successful model. The numbers I am quoting are from a Mustang Club's site. The 417,000 production run was listed as units sold, so that must have been one heck of a sales bonanza. Any opinions on this?
Back in 1964 there weren't as many players, so it would have been easier to sell over 400,000 of a particular vehicle.
Yes, in this marketplace, selling just over 160,000 Mustangs (2005 total) does constitute a success because of its segment (Sport Car). The Mustang dominates this segment (nearly 50% of it.) The same sales, for example, in the Medium Segment wouldn't necessarily constitute success because Accord, Camry, Altima all sell a lot more than 160,000 units in a year.
"Ford has sold over 900,000 F-Series a year for past couple of years. They are outpacing last year with January and February sales. The Toyota plant in Texas can only produce around 300,000 vehicles."
If they take away 20% of the trucks away from Ford, that will really hurt them in their present state. Look at they Explorer, here is a vehicle which has owned the market-it was redesigned, nobody is buying, sales are down 22% from a year ago.
"But, there is no way Toyota will ever dominate the full-size truck market. The F-Series truck is too good and Ford will not sit back and let Toyota take its market share."
That is what everybody said about the Taurus, and then the Camry has been outselling it ever since the "oval redesign".
I've driven the '06 Explorer and '06 4Runner and there is no comparison with ride and comfort, the Explorer blows away the 4Runner. As far as quality goes, the improvements from '02 to '06 are substantial.
I am not talking about features. I am talking "build quality". An '02 4Runner has better build quality than the comparable year Explorer.
Come on, Tundra sales were a third of F-Series sales last year. All those reasons that you are citing, are reasons why Toyota is not dominating the truck market now.
But, I am sure you know that nothing in business remains the same. Also, Toyota has an excellent track record. Compare their performance in the '70s and today.
:confuse: Something is missing here. Isn't the whole point about "lost" jobs to overseas companies abut the ones that are done over there instead of here? While I will concede that many of the 75k lost jobs are due to the implementation of more efficient processes, I will contend that a good percentage of them are the design, management and support teams that now reside in Tokyo, or if they are in the USA, are being filled by Japanese here on a work visa. If you don't believe this, then come spend a few days around the Georgetown. Ky area.
You could be right about those management and tech jobs going overseas. But they are also adding those types of jobs here. Whether the influx or outsourcing represents a higher volume, I do not know.
Having sold cars for Ford, and owned cars by Toyota, if someone has owned the current generation Ford Exploder and the current Toyota 4Runner, and says one is clearly of higher quality than the other (both 1st year model introductions, BTW), that's a major blow against the Ford.
I sold the 2002 and 2003 Exploder, complete with "Tombstone" tires, and I've owned a 1992 4Runner, whose materials, ride, and NVH was competitive with the 2002 Exploder!
You have to get a $40k Eddie Bauer Exploder to get comparable material quality to a SR5 4Runner. the mags aren't impressed with the Exploder, as it has been easily beaten by both the Highlander and 4Runner in comparisons. The XLS doesn't have the materials of a Corolla!
With regards to the Tundra becoming a dominant force in full-size trucks, I don't see it, at least in the next 10 years or so.
Maybe this Tundra will be like the 92 Camry, and totally change the paradigm, but I'm not feeling the interior of the Tundra. We'll see.
I'd say they are selling 4-500k units in the future, similar to Dodge Ram, but not for another 10-15 years.
"Maybe this Tundra will be like the 92 Camry, and totally change the paradigm, but I'm not feeling the interior of the Tundra. We'll see."
The folks at Toyota having been "camping out" in Texas the last two or three years talking to owners of pickup trucks. They have been asking them about their likes, dislikes, what they would like to see improved, etc.
And building it in Texas is a savvy move as well. I think when the FULL SIZE Tundra comes out, it will will give both Ford and GM something to worry about.
This is not to sound elitist, altho it will...a capitalist society, IMO, is like a beehive, with queens and worker bees (aka drones)...yeah, I know that a hive only has one queen, whereas companies may have a few at the top, but, you have top management and workers...like it or not, while some workers do have great responsibility and perform unique tasks, most folks are quite replaceable...
If you take away the workers at GM and Ford, they could probably be replaced in very little time...but if you took away GM and Ford, those unemployed workers would not have the slightest idea what to do with themselves after their unemployment ran out...sure, some would start businesses and move on, but the vast majority of the 500,000 workers would not know what to do with themselves...
The workers need the employer more than the employer needs the workers...no matter how important the workers think they are, they aren't...
Let's change the context just a little...let's say that GM and Ford didn't lay off 1000 people...let's give the initiative to the worker, just to create a more palatable (and politically correct) fantasy...if 1000 workers quit tomorrow to move out and start their own businesses, do you really think that GM and Ford would shut down???...no, they would manage quite well for the short time it required to replace those people...
But if GM and Ford moved out of Detroit tomorrow, the loss to Detroit would be quite large...the employer will ALWAYS be more improtant than the employee...
Sure, they hold employee picnics, give employees performance awards, bonus pay, profit sharing, and all of that is good...but the elephant in the room that no one sees is that those award winning employees could be dumped tomorrow and no one would notice...sure, there are a few exceptions, like losing a Lee Iacocca, or a Bill O'Reilly, or someone like that...but ABC lost Peter Jennings, and, sad as it was, the news was broadcast the next day, and he has pretty much been forgotten...employees are an expendable commodity, regardless of how you try and put a sympathetic spin on it...
The US economy needs entrepreneurs who start up new businesses, which will hopefully create jobs out of their profits...the business creators, in a capitalistic system, are the important ones...the ones who make the product can be replaced on a daily basis, but not the founder and his/her vision...
Comments
I think the future for Explorer and all truck-based SUVs is small: they will go back to the sales levels of the truck-based models in the late 80s, as butch-looking, high-riding, 5- and 7-seat crossover wagons take over their hold on the market, and the few people who need to tow will be the only ones left buying BOF.
It's a very good thing Ford has decided to keep the Freestyle a while - now they should butch up the looks and get the 3.5L in there just as fast as they can.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Gee NVBanker...we agree time to time. Let's go together and buy a lottery ticket!
Rocky
Leading the sales board is the Mazda3 which is built on the same platform as the new Euro Ford Focus. A platform that Ford says is 2 expensive for our Focus.
I hope the morons at Ford that made that call are ones getting canned in the upcoming layoffs.
I wonder if Ford even understands the US car market.
It should be obvious by now that you have to build DISTINCTIVE UNIQUE product.
The Focus FAILS completely to stand out in anyway unless you are looking at the 5 door hatch which is virtually non-existant.
Mark.
Mark.
Rocky
GMPD??? :confuse:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's (GMPD) also is posted on some of their engines.
Rocky
I remember reading awhile back that GM bought them to bring them in-house (in recent years, SLP would do the tuning for GM to create the Camaro SS and Firebird WS-6 package if I remember correctly).
Rocky
The 30,000 exployees who will finally be discarded (probably half of them in the Job Bank getting paid to do nothing), with nothing to lose, will probably start sabotaging the products, making them with more (intentional) mistakes and quality cuts, so that an entire year's worth of production will be suspect...after all, with nothing to lose, possibly no pension, they will do nothing but mark time and make junk until they receive their pink slip...
And, all their Japanese and Korean competitors seem to do is build brand new plants, design their cars with closer and better tolerances, and take market share by the day...
Truthfully, I do not believe that the J & K competitors are actaully taking market share away...I now believe that Ford and GM are doing everything in their power to hand it to them on a silver platter...
Your right on! That job bank is a ridiculous idea. A
policy that states were are going to pay people not to work. (The average cost per person 100K with benefits.)
Then the retired GM people complaining when GM wants them to pay just $700.00 A YEAR to cover their family's health insurance.
The people that work for Ford and GM, their retired folks, all need to spend some time in THE REAL WORLD OF EMPLOYMENT!!
Unbelievable!!
If you abuse your workforce, they will abuse you back. The manufacturers used to have the upper hand. Now they don't.
If anything, the Jobs Bank represents the arrogance of Ford and GM at that time. The feeling among management undoubtedly was that the implementation of new production techniques, along with the introduction of new vehicles, would lead to a rebound in sales, and the Japanese would be "pushed back into the Pacific." With the increased sales would come a need for more workers.
Unfortunately, it hasn't quite worked out that way over the past 20 years...hence the mess we now see today.
However, I really don't care how or why it was originally setup, at 100K a person this is one of the things (among many) that will literally HAND OVER the industry to the Japanese and Koreans.
Getting off topic for a second, but... is that really such a bad thing?
I mean, the implants are adding jobs here. They're adding them in states where we really need those jobs. And the implants seem to have a better business strategy than the domestics.
If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.
You bring up an interesting point. In one way you could argue that the real dollars are going back to Japan and Korea. On the other hand the paycheck the workers get are adding to our economy here.
It's just seems like a sad thing when an industry we were great in, goes to the wayside. Much like the steel, textile, and others that have for the most part gone over seas....
Nobody likes to deal with change...it seems cruel, but economics is cruel...if you do not need the workers, get rid of them and stop making the companies sound like a socialist by having them "keep" the workers they do not need...it means that folks will have to sell their homes and move somewhere else to find work...too bad, as there should NEVER be any guarantees to anyone, unless you want to work/live in Cuba or China...
Same thing with teachers...I don't care if they have put down roots and joined all the civic organizations...if the systten has no students and does not need the teachers, they are fired...simple as that...no obligation to "find them work"...change can be painful, and that is why we have all this extra cost built into our education system or the way we make cars...
We keep you while we need you, and discard you when we don't...if you cannot deal with that, then find a different kind of job...you owe us a fair day's work, and we owe you a fair day's wages...at the end of the day, we are even...
Like it or not, workers have always been, and will always be, expendable...there was only one Henry Ford, but he had 100,000 workers making Model Ts and As...Henry could not be replaced, but any of his workers were quite expendable...this is how it will always be, and outsourcing is proving it daily...if you perform an unskilled job, do not be surprised if I can find someone elsewhere to do it cheaper...if the quality is equal, no reason to pay someone $35/hour if someone can do it for $5/hour...
Minimum wage???...bah...most entry level jobs are not even worth the minimum wage...do you think for one minute that the kid who cuts lettuce at McDonald's, or sweeps the floor is actually worth $5/hour???...just because we have a minimum wage does not mean that simple jobs are WORTH that much, just that the law says they have to be paid that much...if the free market really existed, lettuce cutters would be paid $1/hour...
Entry level jobs are not for making money, they are for teaching folks the responsibility of working and showing up like a responsible adult...would you really pay $10/hour for someone to put cans of tuna on the shelves of WalMart grocery???...do you really feel that the job is worth more than $1/hour???...just because the kid is breathing???...that is why the union movement will end in the next 5 years, because they demand ridiculous wages for some of the most simplistic jobs in America...not ALL of the jobs are simplistic, mind you, but placing a tire/wheel combo on 5 lug nuts does not exactly require a college degree, or even a high school diploma...
Following your ideology - you should get exactly the same pay as these poor lettuce cutters, because as far as I am concerned you're full of it pal!
Following the same ideology the CEO's , Doctors and lawyers should all get $10/hour, as they are only 10 times as important as the kid who wipes the floor. It is the corporate greed of the upper management and the stock market punks that are killing our industries, not the workers. Go back and get another BMA, so that you can educate us on the benefits of outsourcing to India and China.
I mean, the implants are adding jobs here.
There are a couple of problems with this. First is that although they are adding jobs here, they aren't adding enough jobs. The economic hit to America would be pretty huge.
Also, one of the reasons that the US has privatized health care is because of the Big 3 (or Detroit 3 now if you prefer). GM alone pays health care for 1 million Americans. You think health care is a crisis now, wait until Detroit goes under.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Actually, the imports are not "adding" jobs over here. They are hiring displaced workers in most cases. And unfortunately, not enough of them. Last year, I read the results of a study that stated; over the past 5 years, the domestic auto industry (including suppliers) lost 100,000 employees. The foreign transplants only added 25,000 jobs in the US during the same timeframe. So, three-quarters of our domestic autoworkers ended up in new careers.
"They're adding them in states where we really need those jobs."
What about the states where a domestic plant closed. Most of the import factories are not in the same state where a domestic plant closed. Also, have you heard how much money these states are offering the foreign companies to build a plant in their state? Why wouldn't you build a plant when the state will give you almost as much in concessions as it's going to cost to build the plant?
Our country is [non-permissible content removed]-backwards for allowing these foreign companies to come into the USA and do this while our own companies are closing plants and laying off Americans. Also, when we try to build something in their country, do you think we are getting similar concessions? Not even close.
Then, as in the case of Toyota and their new truck plant in Texas (the heart of the truck market) to tell Americans that their truck is the official truck of Texas and it's as American as Texas is. What a bunch of crap. It is and always will be a foreign truck assembled in the USA.
You are right on the money. But, there is a solution. Buy a GM or Ford vehicle. Except for those with exquisite tastes for Beemers, Benzs and japanese luxury models, GM and Ford have produced some very competitive cars and trucks.
One of the major news publications printed an article that was titled "Are Domestic Vehicles Really That Bad?" When you look at dependability studies, sales satisfaction and service satisfaction scores, they are not that bad. They're actually better than many imports. But, the perception to many Americans is that they are not as good.
The goal of the domestic automakers is to convince the "domestic defectors" to buy one of their products. Fusion and Milan are very competitive with import vehicles in their segment. Five Hundred, Montego, Lucerne and Impala are very competitive in their segments. Mustang is a hands down winner, as is the Pontiac Solstice. The new line up of GM SUVs are selling well. The new Explorer is by far the best Explorer ever made. (I just bought one.) Freestyle is constantly chosen as one of the best family vehicles because of its roominess, safety and fuel economy. And the full-size truck market is owned by the domestics. It's tough to beat an F-150 Crew Cab! Why would anyone want to buy a japanese full-size truck when America invented the pick-up truck and have been doing them right for so many years?
We, Americans can save GM and Ford by giving them an objective shot at our business. Unfortunately, many don't care anymore.
Auto production in North America has not dropped. We've produced just as many cars in recent years as we did the years prior. How is this possible? Because the imports are picking up the slack.
Do they hire as many workers as the domestics? Honestly, I don't know. If they don't, why should we fault them? If they have a more efficient process for building the same number of cars using fewer workers, that's progress. You can't stop progress. If you don't take advantage of it, someone else will. And they'll put you out of business.
To address the remarks about states giving incentives to companies who build auto plants, simply think about what would have driven them to make those deals. Would the state leaders have made those deals if the picture was so rosy that they didn't need it? Nope. The deals have been profitable for the states as well as the implant manufacturers.
I traded in my '02 XLT Explorer for an '05 4Runner, there is NO COMPARISON in quality. I could go on and on about the issues it had, but they are well documented on the Explorer and Explorer problems board.
Your right, I DON'T CARE. The reasons that GM is in bad shape is called the Malibu, Alero, Aztec, Grand Am, just about the entire Buick line, etc.
And for Ford, not re designing the Ranger, not bringing over the European Focus, releasing the 500 with a motor too small, etc.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
Toyota has spent the last three years in Texas talking to Texans about their pickup trucks. There is a FULL SIZE Tundra coming out soon, that will be built in Texas. I have a feeling they are going to get it right....big time!
So there goes the America truck market share down the tubes.....
And, if one DOES have a family of five, and all they can do is cut lettuce, does their circumstance make it worth $20/hour, just because they need that much???...of course not...entry level means just that...no skills needed, training in under a day...
If not for the unions, placing wheels on cars does not require years of training, either...if the companies had the guts to tolerate a strike for a year, we would see how fast workers would come crawling back to work for $10/15 per hour...heck, ask an auto worker if THEY would pay someone $35/hour to clean their house, the same janitorial job as cleaning the shop floor???...I would bet they would never pay more than$10 hour, which is probably what the job may be worth...
You bring up an excellent point, marsha7 - Henry was not expendable, as has been proven by the history of Ford. Then again, he was the worst thing for the company in the latter days of his life, as he wouldn't change with the world. The UAW constantly laments the salaries of the CEOs, I suppose they think any journeyman could run GM or Ford. Guess what, they can't. Now, the CEOs may run them badly, and if they do, rest assured, the stockholders will hold them accountable and they'll be fired. Will they go hungry, no.... certainly not. But they have advanced degrees and have climbed their way to the top to get the job, they have some abilities.
The CEO is not always expendable, the worker bees are. It's the law of survival, and it will always be so.
You have got to be kidding!
Ford has sold over 900,000 F-Series a year for past couple of years. They are outpacing last year with January and February sales. The Toyota plant in Texas can only produce around 300,000 vehicles.
I'm really surprised that it's taken Toyota three tries to get the truck close to competing with Ford, GM and Dodge.
But, there is no way Toyota will ever dominate the full-size truck market. The F-Series truck is too good and Ford will not sit back and let Toyota take its market share.
I think this is going to go down as "famous last words!"
I've driven the '06 Explorer and '06 4Runner and there is no comparison with ride and comfort, the Explorer blows away the 4Runner. As far as quality goes, the improvements from '02 to '06 are substantial.
It's too bad that you don't care. I hope that not everyone shares your sentiments.
Come on, Tundra sales were a third of F-Series sales last year. You are also looking at a demographic of truck buyers that are a good portion of "good old boys" who would rather die than to drive a japanese vehicle.
I saw a picture of the Toyota plant in Texas while it was being built that showed the trucks they were using on the job site. They were all Ford trucks.
You are proving a very important point with your statement. The point is that Domestic Car manufacturers are not efficient and are over staffed. I think that you will agree that the total number of cars made in USA has increased not decreased in the last 10 years. I think that you will also agree that car sales lost by Domestics were gained by Transplants.
This means that Transplants are able to build more cars with less people. I mean if 100,000 jobs were lost and 25,000 jobs were gained, then Transplants needed 75,000 less people to build the same number of cars. Now I can see why Detroit is doing so poorly. Any company that needs 100,000 people to do the job of 25,000 people will sooner of later go out of buissness.
What I don't see if why this is bad for American economy. As you stated 3/4 of displaced workers ended up in new carriers. That means that they are also adding to American Economy, where as before they were working to build the same number of cars as are now built by 1/4 of the people. Now they are doing new things which were not done before. Remember American economy is the total sum of all production.
Yes, in this marketplace, selling just over 160,000 Mustangs (2005 total) does constitute a success because of its segment (Sport Car). The Mustang dominates this segment (nearly 50% of it.) The same sales, for example, in the Medium Segment wouldn't necessarily constitute success because Accord, Camry, Altima all sell a lot more than 160,000 units in a year.
If they take away 20% of the trucks away from Ford, that will really hurt them in their present state. Look at they Explorer, here is a vehicle which has owned the market-it was redesigned, nobody is buying, sales are down 22% from a year ago.
"But, there is no way Toyota will ever dominate the full-size truck market. The F-Series truck is too good and Ford will not sit back and let Toyota take its market share."
That is what everybody said about the Taurus, and then the Camry has been outselling it ever since the "oval redesign".
I am not talking about features. I am talking "build quality". An '02 4Runner has better build quality than the comparable year Explorer.
All those reasons that you are citing, are reasons why Toyota is not dominating the truck market now.
But, I am sure you know that nothing in business remains the same. Also, Toyota has an excellent track record. Compare their performance in the '70s and today.
Finally "never" is a long long time...
http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=54214&cat=Industry
That partcular article talks mostly about Hyundai and Toyota. But Honda is also opening up design studios here in the US.
http://hondanews.com/CatID3000?mid=2006010482219&mime=asc
I sold the 2002 and 2003 Exploder, complete with "Tombstone" tires, and I've owned a 1992 4Runner, whose materials, ride, and NVH was competitive with the 2002 Exploder!
You have to get a $40k Eddie Bauer Exploder to get comparable material quality to a SR5 4Runner. the mags aren't impressed with the Exploder, as it has been easily beaten by both the Highlander and 4Runner in comparisons. The XLS doesn't have the materials of a Corolla!
With regards to the Tundra becoming a dominant force in full-size trucks, I don't see it, at least in the next 10 years or so.
Maybe this Tundra will be like the 92 Camry, and totally change the paradigm, but I'm not feeling the interior of the Tundra. We'll see.
I'd say they are selling 4-500k units in the future, similar to Dodge Ram, but not for another 10-15 years.
DrFill
The folks at Toyota having been "camping out" in Texas the last two or three years talking to owners of pickup trucks. They have been asking them about their likes, dislikes, what they would like to see improved, etc.
And building it in Texas is a savvy move as well. I think when the FULL SIZE Tundra comes out, it will will give both Ford and GM something to worry about.
If you take away the workers at GM and Ford, they could probably be replaced in very little time...but if you took away GM and Ford, those unemployed workers would not have the slightest idea what to do with themselves after their unemployment ran out...sure, some would start businesses and move on, but the vast majority of the 500,000 workers would not know what to do with themselves...
The workers need the employer more than the employer needs the workers...no matter how important the workers think they are, they aren't...
Let's change the context just a little...let's say that GM and Ford didn't lay off 1000 people...let's give the initiative to the worker, just to create a more palatable (and politically correct) fantasy...if 1000 workers quit tomorrow to move out and start their own businesses, do you really think that GM and Ford would shut down???...no, they would manage quite well for the short time it required to replace those people...
But if GM and Ford moved out of Detroit tomorrow, the loss to Detroit would be quite large...the employer will ALWAYS be more improtant than the employee...
Sure, they hold employee picnics, give employees performance awards, bonus pay, profit sharing, and all of that is good...but the elephant in the room that no one sees is that those award winning employees could be dumped tomorrow and no one would notice...sure, there are a few exceptions, like losing a Lee Iacocca, or a Bill O'Reilly, or someone like that...but ABC lost Peter Jennings, and, sad as it was, the news was broadcast the next day, and he has pretty much been forgotten...employees are an expendable commodity, regardless of how you try and put a sympathetic spin on it...
The US economy needs entrepreneurs who start up new businesses, which will hopefully create jobs out of their profits...the business creators, in a capitalistic system, are the important ones...the ones who make the product can be replaced on a daily basis, but not the founder and his/her vision...