vince8 maybe you should look at the way the profits were made,although I think your figure is high.The company moves manufacturing out of the country and untilizes cheaper foreign labor at the expense of American workers.I will not say that Ford puts out garbage cars and trucks,they do put put some good vehicles,although there are some areas that they make "cheaply".Some vehicles you could classify as throw aways.Another area for their profits could be argued through their parts and service departments.What percentage of their profits is attributed to that area?
You seem to be the one who always brings up Ford making garbage. Some of us just prefer other makes, that is it!!! You wont be happy untill everyone drives a Ford will you? How boring the world would be and how we would all get screwed in the end.
The figures I quoted about Ford earnings are right from a newspaper article in todays paper. No, I would not be happy if everyone drove a Ford. I just get sick an tired of the constant bashing of a company that builds quality vehicles. Ford Taurus sales are up, the Focus sales are screaming too. Ford Taurus placed third at Edmunds family car shoot out, above the Maxima!! yes, ABOVE the Maxima. And only .3 points behind the Honda Accord. Ford is doing things right and consumers make the choice.
If you go larger than stock tires, do you lose torque? I read something like if you go with larger off road tires on a truck, you get the added benefits of the tire/traction, but can lose up to 6% of your torque. You all ever heard this?
Vince, I don't think Ford makes bad vehicles per se, but I do have a problem with your logic which equates big profits with great products.
One good example is Harley Davidson. The Motor Company has been posting record earnings for so long now that it's almost old news to hear about how much money H-D is raking in. Yet, from what I've heard from executive types who are buying these $23,000 montrosities the legendary Harley unreliability is still very much alive and well. A lot of the new crop of Harley owners bought and put up with them simply because if they'd show up on a Japanese cruiser they wouldn't get to ride with the HOG "in" crowd.
Another example: the Dodge Ram. The sudden popularity boom when Chrysler restyled the Ram for sure did not automatically mean their pickups are suddenly much more reliable.
I agree with you that Ford is doing things right - F-150s in particular IMO - but the correlation between sales success and machinery reliability is not alway a clear cut case.
Vince, you need to see if there is a library near you so you can check out a book on logic, you have been using this tired argument for way too long, ford sells more so they must be more reliable, that is so faulty a child could see the holes in it. I am sure that Hyundai sells more vehicles than mercedes, are you going to try to tell us that the hyundai is a better car than the benz? Well I don't know, maybe you will. Yea ford is doing things right, hey where can I get a cobra mustang oh, yea delayed for quality issues, when is the escape coming out, oh yea, delayed because of quality issues, where can I buy a 5spd sport trac, Oh yea, and so on, if that's your definition of improving and doing things right, I'll stick with what I have.
And why is it when you go around starting arguments with Nissan toyota owners and others you aren't Nissan Bashing, toyota bashing or what ever, but if someone shows you the facts of why they don't like fords they are ford bashing?
Well, at least Ford is delaying and fixing the problems. Lately, it seems that they'd rush a new auto to market to rake in the cash on what has pretty much been success after success. I'd personally never, ever, ever buy ANY first year model no matter who made it. I'll leave that to the status-seeking, gotta-have-the-next-best-thing kind of people.
cncman & volfy:
One more thing. I don't think that making comparisons to Hyundai vs. Mercedes or Harley Davidson vs. Japanese bikes are anywhere near logical. Cult-status items vs. everyday items just makes no sense. However, Ford vs. Nissan seems pretty logical to me. Just an observation (nothing to do with the sales issue).
Yes, putting on larger tires will reduce the amount of torque at the rear wheels. It will also mess up the speedo. You'll be travelling faster than what is displayed.
Swapping in different gears will fix this problem (if the tires were big enough as to cause a problem). You could have the dealer recalibrate your speedo if you should even choose to do so.
I'm not sure gear ratio or tire size(effectively the same thing) affect torque or horsepower, just the amount of time to spin up to the numbers is affected. Think about it, you can run a truck on a dyno in any gear available to achieve max torque ratings much the same way you'd downshift on the highway.
You're absolutely right those comparisons are illogical. That was the whole point. People are illogical sometimes when it comes to motor vehicle buying. To the extend that motorcycles are leisure vehicles, as opposed to pickups which are typically "everyday" utility vehicles, yes, the buying decision processes are somewhat different. More and more, however, pickups trucks are being bought for leisure usage and as image vehicles.
In any case, the huge profit = reliability equation still don't compute. Dodge Ram pickups blows that theory right out of the water.
I'd hazard to say that "image" influences 99% of personal auto purchases. With cult-status vehicles (like Harley & Benz, not Ford & Nissan), "image" is everything.
I know that huge profit doesn't equal reliable. But, you have got to admit that the #2 auto maker in the world (or so I've seen/read someplace) doesn't get there by building junk. They must be doing something right. I'd say that it's building a good (sometimes better, sometimes worse) product at a fair price (usually) for the majority of consumers.
EXCACTLY!! The numnber 2 automaker doesn't stay number 2 by building junk and unreliable products. Sales do matter, Cncman should know this above all, Sales make MONEY. With all the Ford bashing and saying Ford makes unreliable, junk vehicles I thought I would post the company that is making all this "junk" is making a huge profit at it. The consumer makes the choice and it looks like consumers are liking what Ford is building. Look at the Edmunds comaprison test between the Taurus and Maxima, Taurus wins!!!!. Yes, the Taurus is the better value and finished ahead of the Maxima!. Chew on that for a while.
Cthompson; I was using those illustrations to illustrate the point that the premise more sales/profits=more reliability doesn't hold water when you put other variables in the equation. I am not necessarily saying that Ford always builds junk, there are alot of folks like yourself and Vince that have had a good experience with Ford, no problem, but there is no way anyone can say that the quality and reliability of ANY Ford can match or exceed the reliability of ANY Nissan/Toyota/Honda. Sure you can point out good and bad exapmles of any vehicles after all they are machines built by people, that is a combination that excludes perfection. But there is not one third party source that rates Ford higher than the Japanese big three not one! Every place that rates cars on quality rates the japanese makes higher, and noone has shown me one that hasn't, JD power, intellichoice, consumer reports, consumers digest all rate the japanese cars/trucks higher, you just can't ignore all of that data.
And you have to admit that people don't buy Fords for reliability as the #1 reason, the majority of Ford buyers don't compare vehicles or if they do it is usually GM/Chrysler, the most common thing I see is, "my dad had a ford, his dad had a ford, I am going to buy a ford", or something like that, not because they came to a conclusion on their own. I can't count how many people pull on my lot trying to trade in their explorer or windstar and say they will never buy a ford again, and we can't trade them out of them because the bottom fell out of the resale value. Also Automotive News had a breakdown on monthly sales per dealer for each brand I think Ford was about 85, Toyota was about 60 and Nissan was about 60, a very small difference, There are alot more dealers out there for fords which can make a difference, Cthompson may have bought a Nissan if there were more Nissan dealers around that were competitive and he got a good price. There are towns around where I live that all you see is delaerships for the big 3, I am sure some of those folks would have bought imports but the fact that the dealer was close played a big part in it. Plus a huge amount of the sales are from full size trucks and muscle cars, mustangs, camaros etc. so please don't tell me that these folks are buying these cars and trucks with reliability #1 in their mind, these are niche vehicles that fullfill a specific need that noone else can, (of course with the exception of the Tundra, but it will take awhile to convert buyers). SO basically, reliability has very little to do with sales, so again the argument doesn't hold water.
Vince so far as the edmunds rating I read most of it and basically what I got out of it was the criteria was what was the best VALUE for a family, The only reason the ford placed so high is because it was roomy, offered a decent V6 and was one of the lowest prices, not because it was the most reliable or best looking or best performing or anything like that, most of them were complaining about things like no 4wheel disc brakes. Did you notice that the maxima was the one that they had to pry the keys from the drivers hands? And performed and handled like a dream, the Taurus is a decent value for the criteria of the test, but Nissan wanted to make a real driving enthusiasts car not a boring family sedan, tell me do you still think the taurus would come out on top if the criteria was which one was the most fun to drive or which one would the editors most like to have in their driveway? Please, I don't think anyone could drive the maxima and the taurus, exclude price and choose a Taurus.
BTW I think we are still waiting for the proof that Renault Bought Nissan, or you to admit you were wrong, come up with anything yet? Or are you just going to ignore this like every other time you bring up false information?
My Frontier is the first "import" vehicle I've ever owned. When it came time to buy a new truck, I took into account not only all the ratings, but my personal experiences with other vehicles, friend's experiences, and my own needs. Ford was out because I personally have not had luck with any Ford ever. My S-10 gave me 160K and ran like a champ, but I was just tired of the look/feel after 9 years of that truck. Toyo was way too overpriced (for me anyway) for a compact pick-up. Mazda is a Ranger clone. Hombre is an S-10 clone. Dodge is..well...Dodge. So by default I was left with Nissan. I tested it a lot, researched it, asked around about it and got opinions from friends/co workers etc. Test drove it again and again, priced it....and finally arrived at the decision to buy it.
But for me, reliabilty did indeed factor into the decision making process. Basically I wanted a truck that is reliable and that other than routine maint I'm not gonna have to take vacation time to take to a dealer or hassle with fixing all sorts of things.
But what did not factor in was the old "American vs. Japanese" argument. I wanted a truck that would run be it American, Japanese, or built by Yugo for all I care. Me personally, I was willing to sacrifice a few horses for reliability. So that left the Big 3 out basically.
But everyone has different needs and some may want more horses and decide to go for an S-10 or Ranger or Dakota and gamble that that they got a solid built truck that won't give them problems.
Cncman, you are in sales. Why if Fords are so unreliable and terrible quality do people still buy them?? Are you telling me people only buy Fords because their Dad did?? LOL@! Come on, Ford builds what people want and at a fair price to the consumer. And as far as reliability data how do you explain www.carpoint.msn.com data? I believe at one point Japanese vehicles were once superior and better quality, those days are gone. The Data is showing up all over the net that also proves this, another is consumer digest, another is www.auto.com. And your logic as to why people keep buying Fords is a riot!@. About the Renault/Nissan deal. Go to Yahoo and type in Renault Nissan merger. All kinds of articles on this deal. Nissan was cash strapped and you know it. Keep on believing that Renault just decided to give Nissan millions just for the heck of it. The Max is how much more than the Taurus? And how much quicker along with the slalom numbers? come on, we are talking tenths of points here. Image is what gives the Maxima the edge, the numbers tell the truth.
I'm not getting involved in the 'ole reliability debate. The only make that I've ever had any problems with was GM (kinda my own fault, knew about the flawed design but still bought it).
I believe that owner maintenance plays the biggest part in reliability. If some auto website or magazine wants to call my truck unreliable because of some malfunctioning switch (like the "wacky wipers" & door chime switch on my '95), then so be it. I don't see a single trip to the dealer where I dropped off my truck in the a.m. and picked it up on my way home from work as an major inconvenience, such as some people like to cry about.
About the only truck I'd even think about reliability would be a Dakota auto-tranny. For all the rest, I'd be looking at price, performance, and hundreds of little subjective things.
You keep talking about the high sales of Ford and how that must mean that they have high quality. You are obviously not in sales or into any form of marketing. Understand this, just because you have high sales numbers doesn't mean that you have a high quality item(I'm not saying that the Ford doesn't make a quality product). What you need to look at when you look at the sales numbers is a breakdown of the picture. I can remember when Ford was so proud a few years ago when the Taurus outsold the Accord, gosh they were so proud! But what the public didn't know was that those Taurus figures included all of the Taurus sales...including RENTAL CAR sales. That's right don't forget about the rental car market, which by the way they don't focus on reliability. Some of you I know won't believe me(on the reliablity issue)but, most rental companies keep their autos for about 20k miles. I know some keep them longer but usually never past 40k miles. These companies care about the dollar how cheaply they can get into one how long it will tkae them to write it off. So do your homework before you start slinging sales figures especially, when your comparing quality to sales.
I think I'll avoid the reliability debate as well. For me, the issue was farther down the list when the time came to make a purchase decision. My major focus in buying a new compact truck was finding the best combination of styling, options, and price... But I have a question for cncman. Back in post #330, you made some strong comments concerning product loyalty. To paraphrase: "...my father bought a Ford, my grandfather bought a Ford..." , etc. Do you really find that sort of generational product loyality still so prevalent? I was under the distinct impression that consumers, especially armed with so much readily available info, were much more willing to cross product lines to find the best fit for their individual needs. I know that was the way I approached buying my new truck. I went from a Chevy to a Mazda. My wife went from a Pontiac to a Toyota. Shoot, even cygnusx1 (sp?) went from an S10 to a Fontier. I guess your statement in #330 just surprised me, cncman. I thought that we were all more enlightened consumers than you seem to indicate...
My whole point is.... Why do Ford sales and profits continue to rise when their cars/trucks are supposed to be so terrible? Consumers these days are smart and informed. I would think that if after over 50* years of making cars/trucks and the Ford product being around as long that they would have gone out of business by now with making such terrible products, yet Ford sales continue to rise along with profits. The bottom line is sales numbers do matter. The consumer rules! Got my new Truck Trend, has all the new trucks for 2001/2002. The Quadcabs are showing up like mad. New Toyota, GMC and Chevy coming sometime in fall. Also a pic of the 2001 Frontier better styling upfront. But what is with the rivets along the fenders? Also the supercharger will be available in fall and only in certain models.
You're right about owner maintenance. And to add to that, the way people actually drive their vehicles (jack rabbit starts, hard braking around turns, etc) also plays a part too. But still, if you drive a vehicle sensibly and do the maintenance then anything more than a minor problem gets to be really irritating. And for me anyway, I have to take a whole day off of work to get my vehicle into a dealership for repairs. I could have sailed around the world with all time I spent at the Ford dealers. But, that was just my own personal experience with the big blue oval.
I know what your point was, I'm just saying that sales figures can sometimes be deceiving. These sales figures are what the company wants the public to see. Also remember, as the population grows, as easy approval for auto loans increase(anyone can get a car now), higher incomes, more models offered and more companies leasing vehicles the higher your figures will be. What I'm trying to say is, saying that your sales are up do to the preception of better quality is just one aspect to why sales are up. To compare past figures with present you would need to use the same variables. Also, it can work the other way as well, if your prices, styles of your models, ltd. model selection(obviously not ford), horrible dealers can all lead to decreased sales. These can go down but not due to bad quality. In the case of bad products, as the number of sales go up so can the number of 'bad' products i.e. if ford were to sell say 400,000 rangers and 4,000 of them had major malfunctions and Nissan were to sell 4,000 and 4 of them were to have the same major malfunctions they both have a 1% malfunction ratio. The same right, except you will have a greater chance of hearing about the Fords because a larger portion of the population had problems than the Nissans. I believe that these manufactures excel in certain fields, they offer better quality in different models.
I don't know Xena, maybe it is just my area,(I live in Texas) but yes, talking to people outside of work I see that alot, and also, more than once, a young kid getting his/her first car comes in to look at a sentra or a truck or something, and Dad is a good 'ol boy and sits there and just finds everything he can to complain about so that he can get the kid to go look at an escort, or sometimes won't even get out of the car, and actually, it is kind of surprising, but I usually ask my customers how much they know about a vehicle, or how they found out about it, they usually say, "well I see alot of them on the road and I liked it" and they haven't really done any comparison in literature or on the internet. I do get faurly often an older couple that has always been a Ford, GM, dodge owner, that bought one of their kids an old sentra or truck and said they came in to look because they had such good luck with their kid's Nissans, so it is not often, unless I am dealing with a customer that contacted me over the internet that says, well I came to look at the "whatever" because such and such magazine or article recommended it. I think it is really odd with how much information that is out there, people are still making basically impulse decisions.
So far as the argument that ford could not have been in business long if they built junk, I think the conflict here is that I do not think all Ford makes is junk, there are some decent fords out there. I actually have very few problems with a few models of Fords on my used side, I was just stating that one of the most important factors to me was reliability, and as I have shown the frontier has better reliability figures, that was one aspect of the frontier vs rager debate. ANd also I do think that a company can stay in business and make money while making junk, I don't think Vince or anyone would argue with me that Hyundai still makes lousy vehicles in the reliability department, but they still sell alot of vehicles and I haven't looked it up, but I would expect they are profitable. I mean come on Hyundai has become synonomous with junk, but they have ridiculously low prices, good styling, and can finance anyone, ( which BTW ford has some of thes characteristics, I have had many customers I could not get approved, and they end up on a red carpet lease). So I don't think Ford is down there with Hyundai or even Chrysler to some degree, but they still aren't up there with Nissan?Toyota/Honda.
Hey I just thought of something I think we all can agree on, I think we all probably think chryslers are junk right? Maybe there is hope for us yet.!!
Thanks for the input. It is interesting to get a different perspective on various topics including consumer brand loyalty or lack there of... For the record, I did take a look at the Frontier during my search for a compact truck. I did like the price, it was definitely competitive. However, I did have some personal issues with styling and options. No knock against Nissan. The Frontier is a good product... Not sure about Chrysler being junky. However, I would not buy one of the truck/SUV products with an automatic tranny... Looks like the tail end of your entry #340 got chopped off. Your were saying...?
actually, no it did not get chopped off, I thought I had deleted that, but it was just farther down! I don't know if anyone has looked at decision sciences, but it is very interesting how we make choices and why some people love their "X" and can't see how anyone can possibly choose a "Y" over an "X" (put your own make/models in for X &Y). Basically you make a mental list all of the factors that go into buying a vehicle and there are probably several hundred, and give each one weight. Every vehicle has advantages over all the other vehciles, I could show you several advantages that a daewoo has over a mercedes. It just depends on what aspect you give the most weight too. For me it was, economy, low price/payments, comfort, decent power out of a 4 cylinder, a big bed, good warranty and a good ride, plus my experience with Nissans in the past. these are the aspects I put the most emphasis or weight on. FOr someone else like VInce, they are not necessarily looking for economy, but styling and being able to perform off road were very important, plus his good expereince with ford. SO if either of our needs change, and we put more weight on a different aspect then all of the sudden another truck or another vehicle would be a better choice. This is why Vince doesn't talk about the 4cylinder ranger or frontiers much and I don;t talk much about the 4x4's because neither are important to us. It really doesn't matter to me if the ranger is a better 4x4 off road truck than a 4x4 frontier or not, and it doesn't matter to VInce if the frontier 4 cylinder is more economical than the ranger or not, because these don't fit our needs and I put very little weight into how a truck does Off road and Vince puts very little weight into which truck is the most economical. SO I think the best thing to do to help others make a decision or a good comparison is when someone gives their opinions of a vehicle, see what aspects they are really putting the emphasis on and if you have the same needs and put the same emphasis on the same aspects, then maybe that will be a better truck/vehicle for you. If not, then it really doesn't matter. Well this stuff is actually common sense, but I never really sat down and looked at it in this manner, so I thought I would share and it might better help us understand where others are coming from.
Renault owns 36.8% of Nissan. By Japanese law this give Renault a very strong position and veto power over major decisions. By Japanese law any shareholders holding more than 33.4% have veto power. Cncman, How can you continue to say Nissan is its own car company? Renault has the steering wheel now, its all over the internet and was all over the news. The only 2 fully Japanese car companies left are Toyota and Honda. The other thing that gets me is how did Nissan gets itself into this huge debt in the first place? (21 billion $$$$$ in debt???).
VInce, re read my post#284, you aren't saying anything new here. I can say Nissan is it's own company because it is a fact, I am going to quote here from the articles YOU posted the links are still there at #283 for everyone to see, so there is no confusion. "This is not a merger, each company will maintain its own corporate strategies"
"Renault cannot run the company merely by having veto power"
Renault says, "We'll respect Nissan's independance"
SO the articles you posted as proof of what you are saying actually contradict what you are syaing. Just admit you are wrong, if you were going to find something that says Renault Owns/control Nissan you would have found it by now, why don't you move on to the next batch of misinformation you want to throw out there.
HOnestly, it does not matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to consumers either,since it will not have any impact on the dealers and products. I just got tired of vince throwing out bad info saying that Renault bought/controls Nissan. I don't know about VInce, but I think I have made my point and am done with the subject.
So I guess Renault bailed Nissan out for nothing? Just decided to be nice folks and give Nissan millions of dollars? Keep believing that cncman. Toyota and Honda are the only solely owned Japanese carmakers left, all the others Mazda, Isuzu, Subaru, and even Nissan are now owned/controlled by foreign car compaines such as Ford, GM, and Renault.
What is your point(Nissan-Renault issue), where are you going with this? What does this have to do with the frontier vs. ranger,how does renault have anything to do with this topic?
Don't go into preach mode, just explain shortly your point. So Renault owns some shares of the company, do you think that Ford owns all of its shares? You don't know much about the business world do you? Everytime you post(something to do with business) you end up getting proven wrong!
Vince,this is getting old so I will make this short,if you read the article again, it says, nissan gets a cash infusion, renault gets access to Nissan's superior technology and Nissan markets. That is what Renault is getting out of the deal. Why don't you read your own sources before you waste bandwidth with this nonsense. My offer still stands, PROVE to me and everyone else that Renault Owns/controls Nissan with any article from any legitimate source and I will happily admit I am wrong,even with so much out there about this as you say, you still have not shown us any proof of what you are saying, if you can't do that then either admit you were wrong or just go irritate another board.
So to summarize Vince's automotive mind. If it is not Ford it is not worth buying. If it is partly owned by one or more parties owning a third or more of a company, it is obviously not worth buying (the whole product suffers drastic devastating effects in the event shares are bought up).
How stupid of the rest of us to even consider buying anything but a ford. How disloyal we all have become to Vince's Ford Preaching Cause.
Vince you sound like the lost dog that keeps coming back to the wrong house. I think most of us are happy with our non-Ford products. I know you have worked long and hard to convince us otherwise, but why? seems kind of pointless to tell us that the company and the product we bought into are substandard to ford when we already bought the vehicle. When I am everybody else is ready to buy a new car or truck we will come to you to tell us why we should buy a Ford, but right now nobody really cares to you whine any more.
i think the ranger has overall better styling and comfort, also the powertrain options are better on a ranger, i own a ranger and my buddy owns a frontier, he had to get new parts for the engine and they cost a fortune more than the ford does, i think both are reliable brands
tacoma trd; do you also own a tacoma? what parts did you buddy get? How much were they? Where did he get them, dealer or autozone type place? Same questions for the ranger parts. If you do own a tacoma, which do oyu like better, the tacoma or the ranger?
tacoma_trd currently owns a Mazda B2500. But he is looking to move into a Tacoma Prerunner or B3000 Troy Lee. He should probably also add the Frontier Desert Runner to his list. I'm sure he could get a better deal on that as compared to the Prerunner.
my buddy cracked his engine mount on his frontier and he had gotten it replaced at a mechanical body shop type of place, they ordered the parts from nissan, and i know the guy who onws the place, im not exactly sure how much it was but the guy who owns the place said that the same parts for a ford,chevy, or toyota would have been abou $100 dollars cheaper or so, he said that most parts for nissans will run higher in price, that doesnt mean they are a better truck, I do not own a Tacoma, I am in the market for one.
xenal a I havent been a big fan of the desert runners, I like the way they drive, its just Im not to sure if I like the styling, and I dont think they have 4 doors, correct me if im wrong,
Vince did you happen to see the may issue of road&track? they had a shoot out between the accord EX-V6 Grand Prix GT, Taurus SE and Camry XLEV6, guess which one won? Also note where the Taurus finished. THe maxima surpassed everyone in ALL performance figures except 0-60 which the GP won. SO what were you saying about comparing slalom figures? Just goes to show like I was saying, the vehicle that wins depends on the objective of the test, this one was a driving enthusiast test. BTW find any proof of the Renault/Nissan thing yet? Sure has been awhile.
I am not usually one to side with vince but since you dont want to take the 5 seconds it takes to type "Nissan Renault Merger" in a search engine here are some links:
I really dont see what this has to so with Frontier vs Ranger but there it is. Nowhere does it mention Renault wanting access to Nissan technology, just Nissan looking high and low for someone to bail them out.
mvig; actually I did take the time, and saw all of these articles, what I am getting out of it is, "Renault cannot control Nissan with only veto power" each company will retain it's own identity, and things like that that conflict with the statement that Renault bought/controls Nissan, here's the link for you that shows Renault wants access to Nissan's "cutting edge technology" http://freep.com/business/qnissan27.htm
>Nowhere does itmention Renault wanting access to >Nissan technology, just Nissan looking high and >low forsomeone to bail them out.
CNCMAN, one of the articles you listed which we've already seen 20 times does say this:
"The gives Renault much-needed access to the Asian and North American markets and Nissan's cutting-edge technology."
So yeah, it *does* say Renalut will get access to Nissan technology. It's in the second link you posted. Sorry.
ANyway, you're right, what this has to do with anything in here, I don't know. I think it all started when V began trolling for something to debate about after the hp/torque debate ran out of steam.
I think you and vince have a different definition of ownership. When one owns almost 35% of anothers stock I will bet they have some major influence. Plus one article states:
"Analysts question whether Renault will have enough authority to force needed restructuring changes on Nissan, Japan's second-largest automaker."
So it is obvious that Renault's intention is/was to have some real control of Nissan.
P.S. I prefer the Ranger over the Frontier and definately the Maxima over the Taurus (no comparison). I am not just bashing Nissan just commenting
It's simple really guys, Who has the majority of Nissan's stock? That's who is going to control the company, that's who has the most voting power. It really doesn't matter what these articles say, they put words in between the numbers to make it sound more exiting than it probably is. I mean how boring would it be to just say what it is, Renault buys 35% of Nissan's stock! BIG DEAL!
Sorry guys, I think I should just keep quiet, this issue really doesn't matter to me, the consumer will notice no changes here in the US, so it does not effect me or you guys one bit, I just hate when folks throw out things like that that have no bearing on the discussion and aren't true. SO I promise I will not get back into this.
Anyone see anywhere if there will be any interior changes on the redesigned frontier? I am especially interested in pictures or anyone that has seen a show car, they are going to have a leather option, anyone seen how this looks, I am usually the last one to know things like this!
cncman, I think there is a picture of the new hvac dials on the nissan website, if you go to the new frontier spot. Thats about all I saw. I saw the new trucks at the auto show but one was up on a stand and you couldn't see inside, and the other one I didn't get into, sorry.
I wasn't directing my post at you but rather those who think that they completely understand the situation by reading an article and obviously don't know what it takes to have controlling power or votes to run the corporation. For that special person that keeps posting that Nissan is owned, merged, taken over or controlled by Renault, please show me where they have the controlling number of stock that ,supports your claim. If you can't then please state that you're wrong. Thank you!
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the single largest stockholder (Renault in this case) can exert significant control on the company, whether through veto power (Renault can gain veto power by exercising warrants received in the deal) or the election of the board of directors.
For Renault to actually own/control Nissan as a subsidiary, they would need to own 50.1% of the voting stock.
Both Renault and Nissan seem to benefit from the deal. Renault gains entrance into foreign markets and whatever technology Nissan may offer, and Nissan gets some cash to bail themselves out of the huge hole they've dug and work towards being a profitable company again.
This topic doesn't seem to have much to do with Ranger vs. Frontier. I just had to throw in my two business cents after seeing all of the erroneous crap flying around in here.
But! On topic now! I think the rivet holes in the fenders of the redesigned Frontier are terrible. Are they actually going to make production? Anyone actually seen any pics of a production-spec 2001 Frontier yet? I don't believe the pics on freshalloy.com are of a production-spec vehicle.
Comments
No, I would not be happy if everyone drove a Ford. I just get sick an tired of the constant bashing of a company that builds quality vehicles. Ford Taurus sales are up, the Focus sales are screaming too. Ford Taurus placed third at Edmunds family car shoot out, above the Maxima!! yes, ABOVE the Maxima. And only .3 points behind the Honda Accord. Ford is doing things right and consumers make the choice.
One good example is Harley Davidson. The Motor Company has been posting record earnings for so long now that it's almost old news to hear about how much money H-D is raking in. Yet, from what I've heard from executive types who are buying these $23,000 montrosities the legendary Harley unreliability is still very much alive and well. A lot of the new crop of Harley owners bought and put up with them simply because if they'd show up on a Japanese cruiser they wouldn't get to ride with the HOG "in" crowd.
Another example: the Dodge Ram. The sudden popularity boom when Chrysler restyled the Ram for sure did not automatically mean their pickups are suddenly much more reliable.
I agree with you that Ford is doing things right - F-150s in particular IMO - but the correlation between sales success and machinery reliability is not alway a clear cut case.
you need to see if there is a library near you so you can check out a book on logic, you have been using this tired argument for way too long, ford sells more so they must be more reliable, that is so faulty a child could see the holes in it. I am sure that Hyundai sells more vehicles than mercedes, are you going to try to tell us that the hyundai is a better car than the benz? Well I don't know, maybe you will. Yea ford is doing things right, hey where can I get a cobra mustang oh, yea delayed for quality issues, when is the escape coming out, oh yea, delayed because of quality issues, where can I buy a 5spd sport trac,
Oh yea, and so on, if that's your definition of improving and doing things right, I'll stick with what I have.
And why is it when you go around starting arguments with Nissan toyota owners and others you aren't Nissan Bashing, toyota bashing or what ever, but if someone shows you the facts of why they don't like fords they are ford bashing?
cncman & volfy:
One more thing. I don't think that making comparisons to Hyundai vs. Mercedes or Harley Davidson vs. Japanese bikes are anywhere near logical. Cult-status items vs. everyday items just makes no sense. However, Ford vs. Nissan seems pretty logical to me. Just an observation (nothing to do with the sales issue).
Swapping in different gears will fix this problem (if the tires were big enough as to cause a problem). You could have the dealer recalibrate your speedo if you should even choose to do so.
In any case, the huge profit = reliability equation still don't compute. Dodge Ram pickups blows that theory right out of the water.
I know that huge profit doesn't equal reliable. But, you have got to admit that the #2 auto maker in the world (or so I've seen/read someplace) doesn't get there by building junk. They must be doing something right. I'd say that it's building a good (sometimes better, sometimes worse) product at a fair price (usually) for the majority of consumers.
To clarify, increasing tire size will reduce rear wheel torque at a given engine rpm.
Wheel size and gearing will affect the torque band at the rear wheels, but not at the flywheel (where manufacturers measure torque).
I was using those illustrations to illustrate the point that the premise more sales/profits=more reliability doesn't hold water when you put other variables in the equation. I am not necessarily saying that Ford always builds junk, there are alot of folks like yourself and Vince that have had a good experience with Ford, no problem, but there is no way anyone can say that the quality and reliability of ANY Ford can match or exceed the reliability of ANY Nissan/Toyota/Honda. Sure you can point out good and bad exapmles of any vehicles after all they are machines built by people, that is a combination that excludes perfection. But there is not one third party source that rates Ford higher than the Japanese big three not one! Every place that rates cars on quality rates the japanese makes higher, and noone has shown me one that hasn't, JD power, intellichoice, consumer reports, consumers digest all rate the japanese cars/trucks higher, you just can't ignore all of that data.
And you have to admit that people don't buy Fords for reliability as the #1 reason, the majority of Ford buyers don't compare vehicles or if they do it is usually GM/Chrysler, the most common thing I see is, "my dad had a ford, his dad had a ford, I am going to buy a ford", or something like that, not because they came to a conclusion on their own. I can't count how many people pull on my lot trying to trade in their explorer or windstar and say they will never buy a ford again, and we can't trade them out of them because the bottom fell out of the resale value. Also Automotive News had a breakdown on monthly sales per dealer for each brand I think Ford was about 85, Toyota was about 60 and Nissan
was about 60, a very small difference, There are alot more dealers out there for fords which can make a difference, Cthompson may have bought a Nissan if there were more Nissan dealers around that were competitive and he got a good price. There are towns around where I live that all you see is delaerships for the big 3, I am sure some of those folks would have bought imports but the fact that the dealer was close played a big part in it. Plus a huge amount of the sales are from full size trucks and muscle cars, mustangs, camaros etc. so please don't tell me that these folks are buying these cars and trucks with reliability #1 in their mind, these are niche vehicles that fullfill a specific need that noone else can, (of course with the exception of the Tundra, but it will take awhile to convert buyers). SO basically, reliability has very little to do with sales, so again the argument doesn't hold water.
Vince so far as the edmunds rating I read most of it and basically what I got out of it was the criteria was what was the best VALUE for a family,
The only reason the ford placed so high is because it was roomy, offered a decent V6 and was one of the lowest prices, not because it was the most reliable or best looking or best performing or anything like that, most of them were complaining about things like no 4wheel disc brakes. Did you notice that the maxima was the one that they had to pry the keys from the drivers hands? And performed and handled like a dream, the Taurus is a decent value for the criteria of the test, but Nissan wanted to make a real driving enthusiasts car not a boring family sedan, tell me do you still think the taurus would come out on top if the criteria was which one was the most fun to drive or which one would the editors most like to have in their driveway? Please, I don't think anyone could drive the maxima and the taurus, exclude price and choose a Taurus.
BTW I think we are still waiting for the proof that Renault Bought Nissan, or you to admit you were wrong, come up with anything yet? Or are you just going to ignore this like every other time you bring up false information?
I took into account not only all the ratings, but my personal experiences with other vehicles, friend's experiences, and my own needs. Ford was out because I personally have not had luck with any Ford ever. My S-10 gave me 160K and ran like a champ, but I was just tired of the look/feel after 9 years of that truck. Toyo was way too overpriced (for me anyway) for a compact pick-up. Mazda is a Ranger clone. Hombre is an S-10 clone. Dodge is..well...Dodge. So by default I was left with Nissan. I tested it a lot, researched it, asked around about it and got opinions from friends/co workers etc. Test drove it again and again, priced it....and finally arrived at the decision to buy it.
But for me, reliabilty did indeed factor into the decision making process. Basically I wanted a truck that is reliable and that other than routine maint I'm not gonna have to take vacation time to take to a dealer or hassle with fixing all sorts of things.
But what did not factor in was the old "American vs. Japanese" argument. I wanted a truck that would run be it American, Japanese, or built by Yugo for all I care. Me personally, I was willing to sacrifice a few horses for reliability. So that left the Big 3 out basically.
But everyone has different needs and some may want more horses and decide to go for an S-10 or Ranger or Dakota and gamble that that they got a solid built truck that won't give them problems.
About the Renault/Nissan deal. Go to Yahoo and type in Renault Nissan merger. All kinds of articles on this deal. Nissan was cash strapped and you know it. Keep on believing that Renault just decided to give Nissan millions just for the heck of it.
The Max is how much more than the Taurus? And how much quicker along with the slalom numbers? come on, we are talking tenths of points here. Image is what gives the Maxima the edge, the numbers tell the truth.
I believe that owner maintenance plays the biggest part in reliability. If some auto website or magazine wants to call my truck unreliable because of some malfunctioning switch (like the "wacky wipers" & door chime switch on my '95), then so be it. I don't see a single trip to the dealer where I dropped off my truck in the a.m. and picked it up on my way home from work as an major inconvenience, such as some people like to cry about.
About the only truck I'd even think about reliability would be a Dakota auto-tranny. For all the rest, I'd be looking at price, performance, and hundreds of little subjective things.
You keep talking about the high sales of Ford and how that must mean that they have high quality. You are obviously not in sales or into any form of marketing. Understand this, just because you have high sales numbers doesn't mean that you have a high quality item(I'm not saying that the Ford doesn't make a quality product). What you need to look at when you look at the sales numbers is a breakdown of the picture. I can remember when Ford was so proud a few years ago when the Taurus outsold the Accord, gosh they were so proud! But what the public didn't know was that those Taurus figures included all of the Taurus sales...including RENTAL CAR sales. That's right don't forget about the rental car market, which by the way they don't focus on reliability. Some of you I know won't believe me(on the reliablity issue)but, most rental companies keep their autos for about 20k miles. I know some keep them longer but usually never past 40k miles. These companies care about the dollar how cheaply they can get into one how long it will tkae them to write it off. So do your homework before you start slinging sales figures especially, when your comparing quality to sales.
But I have a question for cncman. Back in post #330, you made some strong comments concerning product loyalty. To paraphrase: "...my father bought a Ford, my grandfather bought a Ford..." , etc. Do you really find that sort of generational product loyality still so prevalent? I was under the distinct impression that consumers, especially armed with so much readily available info, were much more willing to cross product lines to find the best fit for their individual needs. I know that was the way I approached buying my new truck. I went from a Chevy to a Mazda. My wife went from a Pontiac to a Toyota. Shoot, even cygnusx1 (sp?) went from an S10 to a Fontier. I guess your statement in #330 just surprised me, cncman. I thought that we were all more enlightened consumers than you seem to indicate...
Got my new Truck Trend, has all the new trucks for 2001/2002. The Quadcabs are showing up like mad. New Toyota, GMC and Chevy coming sometime in fall. Also a pic of the 2001 Frontier better styling upfront. But what is with the rivets along the fenders? Also the supercharger will be available in fall and only in certain models.
a young kid getting his/her first car comes in to look at a sentra or a truck or something, and Dad is a good 'ol boy and sits there and just finds everything he can to complain about so that he can get the kid to go look at an escort, or sometimes won't even get out of the car, and actually, it is kind of surprising, but I usually ask my customers how much they know about a vehicle, or how they found out about it, they usually say, "well I see alot of them on the road and I liked it" and they haven't really done any comparison in literature or on the internet. I do get faurly often an older couple that has always been a Ford, GM, dodge owner, that bought one of their kids an old sentra or truck and said they came in to look because they had such good luck with their kid's Nissans,
so it is not often, unless I am dealing with a customer that contacted me over the internet that says, well I came to look at the "whatever" because such and such magazine or article recommended it. I think it is really odd with how much information that is out there, people are still making basically impulse decisions.
So far as the argument that ford could not have been in business long if they built junk, I think the conflict here is that I do not think all Ford makes is junk, there are some decent fords out there. I actually have very few problems with a few models of Fords on my used side, I was just stating that one of the most important factors to me was reliability, and as I have shown the frontier has better reliability figures, that was one aspect of the frontier vs rager debate. ANd also I do think that a company can stay in business and make money while making junk, I don't think Vince or anyone would argue with me that Hyundai still makes lousy vehicles in the reliability department, but they still sell alot of vehicles and I haven't looked it up, but I would expect they are profitable. I mean come on Hyundai has become synonomous with junk, but they have ridiculously low prices, good styling, and can finance anyone, ( which BTW ford has some of thes characteristics, I have had many customers I could not get approved, and they end up on a red carpet lease). So I don't think Ford is down there with Hyundai or even Chrysler to some degree, but they still aren't up there with Nissan?Toyota/Honda.
Hey I just thought of something I think we all can agree on, I think we all probably think chryslers are junk right? Maybe there is hope for us yet.!!
And so far as
For the record, I did take a look at the Frontier during my search for a compact truck. I did like the price, it was definitely competitive. However, I did have some personal issues with styling and options. No knock against Nissan. The Frontier is a good product...
Not sure about Chrysler being junky. However, I would not buy one of the truck/SUV products with an automatic tranny...
Looks like the tail end of your entry #340 got chopped off. Your were saying...?
I don't know if anyone has looked at decision sciences, but it is very interesting how we make choices and why some people love their "X" and can't see how anyone can possibly choose a "Y" over an "X" (put your own make/models in for X &Y). Basically you make a mental list all of the factors that go into buying a vehicle and there are probably several hundred, and give each one weight. Every vehicle has advantages over all the other vehciles, I could show you several advantages that a daewoo has over a mercedes. It just depends on what aspect you give the most weight too. For me it was, economy, low price/payments, comfort, decent power out of a 4 cylinder, a big bed, good warranty and a good ride, plus my experience with Nissans in the past.
these are the aspects I put the most emphasis or weight on. FOr someone else like VInce, they are not necessarily looking for economy, but styling and being able to perform off road were very important, plus his good expereince with ford. SO if either of our needs change, and we put more weight on a different aspect then all of the sudden another truck or another vehicle would be a better choice. This is why Vince doesn't talk about the 4cylinder ranger or frontiers much and I don;t talk much about the 4x4's because neither are important to us. It really doesn't matter to me if the ranger is a better 4x4 off road truck than a 4x4 frontier or not, and it doesn't matter to VInce if the frontier 4 cylinder is more economical than the ranger or not, because these don't fit our needs and I put very little weight into how a truck does Off road and Vince puts very little weight into which truck is the most economical. SO I think the best thing to do to help others make a decision or a good comparison is when someone gives their opinions of a vehicle,
see what aspects they are really putting the emphasis on and if you have the same needs and put the same emphasis on the same aspects, then maybe that will be a better truck/vehicle for you. If not, then it really doesn't matter. Well this stuff is actually common sense, but I never really sat down and looked at it in this manner, so I thought I would share and it might better help us understand where others are coming from.
The other thing that gets me is how did Nissan gets itself into this huge debt in the first place? (21 billion $$$$$ in debt???).
"This is not a merger, each company will maintain
its own corporate strategies"
"Renault cannot run the company merely by having veto power"
Renault says, "We'll respect Nissan's independance"
SO the articles you posted as proof of what you are saying actually contradict what you are syaing.
Just admit you are wrong, if you were going to find something that says Renault Owns/control Nissan you would have found it by now, why don't you move on to the next batch of misinformation you want to throw out there.
Is Renault some kind of garbage company or something?
it does not matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to consumers either,since it will not have any impact on the dealers and products. I just got tired of vince throwing out bad info saying that Renault bought/controls Nissan. I don't know about VInce, but I think I have made my point and am done with the subject.
What is your point(Nissan-Renault issue), where are you going with this? What does this have to do with the frontier vs. ranger,how does renault have anything to do with this topic?
Don't go into preach mode, just explain shortly your point. So Renault owns some shares of the company, do you think that Ford owns all of its shares? You don't know much about the business world do you? Everytime you post(something to do with business) you end up getting proven wrong!
My offer still stands, PROVE to me and everyone else that Renault Owns/controls Nissan with any article from any legitimate source and I will happily admit I am wrong,even with so much out there about this as you say, you still have not shown us any proof of what you are saying, if you can't do that then either admit you were wrong or just go irritate another board.
If it is not Ford it is not worth buying.
If it is partly owned by one or more parties owning a third or more of a company, it is obviously not worth buying (the whole product suffers drastic devastating effects in the event shares are bought up).
How stupid of the rest of us to even consider buying anything but a ford. How disloyal we all have become to Vince's Ford Preaching Cause.
Vince you sound like the lost dog that keeps coming back to the wrong house. I think most of us are happy with our non-Ford products. I know you have worked long and hard to convince us otherwise, but why? seems kind of pointless to tell us that the company and the product we bought into are substandard to ford when we already bought the vehicle. When I am everybody else is ready to buy a new car or truck we will come to you to tell us why we should buy a Ford, but right now nobody really cares to you whine any more.
do you also own a tacoma? what parts did you buddy get? How much were they? Where did he get them, dealer or autozone type place? Same questions for the ranger parts. If you do own a tacoma, which do oyu like better, the tacoma or the ranger?
xenal a
I havent been a big fan of the desert runners, I like the way they drive, its just Im not to sure if I like the styling, and I dont think they have 4 doors, correct me if im wrong,
http://seattletimes.com/news/business/html98/rena_19990328.html
http://www.auto.com/industry/qnissan27.htm
http://bouldernews.com/business/19bren.html
I really dont see what this has to so with Frontier vs Ranger but there it is. Nowhere does it mention Renault wanting access to Nissan technology, just Nissan looking high and low for someone to bail them out.
actually I did take the time, and saw all of these articles, what I am getting out of it is, "Renault cannot control Nissan with only veto power" each company will retain it's own identity, and things like that that conflict with the statement that Renault bought/controls Nissan, here's the link for you that shows Renault wants access to Nissan's "cutting edge technology"
http://freep.com/business/qnissan27.htm
>Nowhere does itmention Renault wanting access to >Nissan technology, just Nissan looking high and >low forsomeone to bail them out.
CNCMAN, one of the articles you listed which we've already seen 20 times does say this:
"The gives Renault much-needed access to the Asian and North American markets and Nissan's cutting-edge technology."
So yeah, it *does* say Renalut will get access to Nissan technology. It's in the second link you posted. Sorry.
ANyway, you're right, what this has to do with anything in here, I don't know. I think it all started when V began trolling for something to debate about after the hp/torque debate ran out of steam.
"Analysts question whether Renault will have enough authority to force needed restructuring changes on Nissan, Japan's second-largest automaker."
So it is obvious that Renault's intention is/was to have some real control of Nissan.
P.S. I prefer the Ranger over the Frontier and definately the Maxima over the Taurus (no comparison). I am not just bashing Nissan just commenting
What is the reason behind screen name? It reminds me of an old Rush song
Anyone see anywhere if there will be any interior changes on the redesigned frontier? I am especially interested in pictures or anyone that has seen a show car, they are going to have a leather option, anyone seen how this looks, I am usually the last one to know things like this!
I think there is a picture of the new hvac dials on the nissan website, if you go to the new frontier spot. Thats about all I saw. I saw the new trucks at the auto show but one was up on a stand and you couldn't see inside, and the other one I didn't get into, sorry.
I wasn't directing my post at you but rather those who think that they completely understand the situation by reading an article and obviously don't know what it takes to have controlling power or votes to run the corporation. For that special person that keeps posting that Nissan is owned, merged, taken over or controlled by Renault, please show me where they have the controlling number of stock that ,supports your claim. If you can't then please state that you're wrong. Thank you!
For Renault to actually own/control Nissan as a subsidiary, they would need to own 50.1% of the voting stock.
Both Renault and Nissan seem to benefit from the deal. Renault gains entrance into foreign markets and whatever technology Nissan may offer, and Nissan gets some cash to bail themselves out of the huge hole they've dug and work towards being a profitable company again.
This topic doesn't seem to have much to do with Ranger vs. Frontier. I just had to throw in my two business cents after seeing all of the erroneous crap flying around in here.
But! On topic now! I think the rivet holes in the fenders of the redesigned Frontier are terrible. Are they actually going to make production? Anyone actually seen any pics of a production-spec 2001 Frontier yet? I don't believe the pics on freshalloy.com are of a production-spec vehicle.