# Ford - Stupid, Stupid - 21% production cut



## webbie (Aug 18, 2006)

Ford is paying the price for keeping SUV's and large Pickups as their sales leaders.
They announced a 21% cut in North American production today, just as Honda and Toyota...and even Hyundai are expanding and recording record sales.

This is a prime example of short term thinking...and also of corporation unable to change. An article I read about Ford suggest that the layers of management make it difficult to change quickly....

Now, you'll have to excuse me while I take a look at those Ford Corporate bonds my broker bought for me a few years ago. "Ford, what can happen to Ford?" is an exact quote from her.


----------



## Shane (Aug 18, 2006)

"Dodge what can happen to Dodge?" ;-)


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 18, 2006)

The U.S. auto industry started down the slippery slope in the seventies amidst the reality or perception of vast quality differences between U.S. and Japanesse cars and it seems they never will recover.


----------



## wg_bent (Aug 18, 2006)

You guys and Ford both have such a North American view.  Ford has the cars that can compete with the rest of the world, they just sell them only in europe.

But your right Craig...Very short sighted!!


----------



## bruce56bb (Aug 18, 2006)

[quote author="Webmaster" date="1155931380"]Ford is paying the price for keeping SUV's and large Pickups as their sales leaders.
They announced a 21% cut in North American production today


what is wrong with retreating to a defensible position?


----------



## Sandor (Aug 18, 2006)

The Ford Motor company deserves to parish.

Explorer, Expedition then the Excursion.

Then they make the new F150 so big its nearly worthless as a true work vehicle. When I bought my 04 Chevy Z71, I really wanted the Ford. But, I could not put a 50lb toolbox in the back of the bed, behind the cab, and lift it out from the side of the truck. Looking back the last 3 years, I have not seen a single new style F150 at a jobsite. Plenty of Chevies, and I'm talking 1/2 tons here.

Add to this, my non contractor friends that bought the new F150 were getting 14mpg (maybe). My 5.3 litre Silverado consistantly clocks 19.7 mpg. Oh, and the F150 weighs 800 more pounds than the Chevy. 800!

Ya gotta love it. Part of the new Ford "Bold Moves" marketing campaign boldy states that their vehicles sucked up Millions of gallons of fuel over the last several decades. No freaking shi%. Now they want to become "responsible". Why now, cause your losing your butts? Some leadership position.

This company has not given a damn about the environment or energy. Only profits. 

Time to pay....


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Aug 18, 2006)

I havent bought an americal vehicle in 10 years, the last one i had was a 96 F150. Since then i have owned 2 subaru's (forrestor and imprezia) 2 toys (rav and tacoma) and now i own a nissan frontier and a volvo s40. Whats strange is i think the Japaneese are jumping on the big amerian bandwagon. My nissan i can barley reach in the bed, has 17" wheels, 265 HP and gets 17 MPG. Not much different then the new F150's. Now that little volvo i can push 34 MPG with that 6 gear over drive, its the first Euro car i have owned, i love it, but the jury is still out. We will see how it holds up to the abuse that i give it. Im hard on vehicles, every day i drive up a 20 mile canyon that is very twisty and climbs 4000 feet, and i live a mile and a half on a dirt road. The canyon eats tires like nascar, and the dirt road will make a mercedes rattle. But so far so quiet. :D


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 19, 2006)

Three Chevy's, one Plymouth and a couple of Poulans. Around here if it has spark plugs in it then it was made somewhere between the left and the right coast. By a company that has it's headquarters somewhere between the left and the right coast.


----------



## precaud (Aug 19, 2006)

I have an 05 Ranger longbed and love it. 27 mpg combined city/hwy. 1650 lb. payload. Solid and fun to drive, but certainly not flashy.

Ford and GM both have horrendous excess manufacturing capacity in the US. Hence the cuts.  Shoulda been done a long time ago.



> Ford has the cars that can compete with the rest of the world, they just sell them only in europe.



That's the truth!

Wish I'd had the cojones to buy Ford stock a couple months ago...


----------



## begreen (Aug 19, 2006)

I was just going to chime in. I have an older 91 Ranger (aka Mazda B2600) and love it too. Great half-ton truck that gets excellent mileage with the 4 cyl engine.


----------



## HarryBack (Aug 19, 2006)

precaud said:
			
		

> I have an 05 Ranger longbed and love it. 27 mpg combined city/hwy. 1650 lb. payload. Solid and fun to drive, but certainly not flashy.
> 
> Ford and GM both have horrendous excess manufacturing capacity in the US. Hence the cuts.  Shoulda been done a long time ago.
> 
> ...



Heck, Precaud, maybe nows the time to gamble a bit and buy the Ford stock while its in the dumper?


----------



## precaud (Aug 19, 2006)

HarryBack said:
			
		

> Heck, Precaud, maybe nows the time to gamble a bit and buy the Ford stock while its in the dumper?


Harry, you do it and I'll watch. I liked it better a few months ago at 6 bucks... I almost pulled the trigger then, but still have not recovered from the 2000/2001 shellacing...


----------



## mikedengineer (Aug 19, 2006)

I heard Ford Ranger and thought I say how I have a 96 Ranger 4 cyl 5 speed (mazda motor and tranny though).  It get 25 mpg with 150,000 miles and no (knock on wood) major problems.  Darn good truck.  On the other hand those new F150's, I being 6'2" can't even reach over the side of it.  Personally it not functional.  

It blows my mind that they keep changing these vehicles to completly "new" styles.  Why don't they stick with a good design and make it cheaper (retail price) and more fuel efficient.  It's like they have a short attention span or something.

-Mike


----------



## Shane (Aug 19, 2006)

I had an 88 ford broncoII it got around 20mpg if i remember correctly.  Then I got a 93 explorer with the 6cyl engine it got around 16mpg around town and 20 highway.  They were both good vehicles.  I liked the explorer much better (I blew the motor up twice in the bronco).  Now I have a 95 Dodge 1/2 ton.  Sucks gas like no other 11.5-12mpg, I should have shopped for the V6 version though I'm not sure if they made that one four wheel drive or not though.  A friend of mine in Highschool had one that was 2wd and it got around 16mpg.


----------



## bruce56bb (Aug 19, 2006)

interesting that this thread turned into a mpg thread. as we speak, i have customers test driving a brand new 07 hard loaded tahoe. they are taking an extended test drive in real world conditions to compare fuel economy of the 07 to their 01 that isn't hard loaded(less weight). they stated 18 mpg on the 01 and i am hoping the 07 does similar. my gut feeling is that it won't, at least not until it is broke in and loosened up. after they return i will post the results.


----------



## begreen (Aug 19, 2006)

mikedengineer said:
			
		

> I heard Ford Ranger and thought I say how I have a 96 Ranger 4 cyl 5 speed (mazda motor and tranny though).  It get 25 mpg with 150,000 miles and no (knock on wood) major problems.  Darn good truck.  On the other hand those new F150's, I being 6'2" can't even reach over the side of it.  Personally it not functional.
> 
> It blows my mind that they keep changing these vehicles to completly "new" styles.  Why don't they stick with a good design and make it cheaper (retail price) and more fuel efficient.  It's like they have a short attention span or something.
> 
> -Mike



Yep. My worst mileage - short trips to the dump, concrete recycler, dirt yards and town has been 22mpg. Best is a bit over 30 mpg. Size is just right. I got mine for $700 because the owner's daughter had slid into a ditch and banged up the pickup bed and driver's door. They replaced the door glass and bent out the worst dents, so it is completely drivable, just looks beat. But underneath it's still a young truck with a clean interior and lots of spunk.


----------



## seaken (Aug 19, 2006)

We are in the market for a replacement truck. I currently have a 1990 Nissan King Cab 4-cyl 4WD and I get about 18mpg. It is about time to retire it and we are looking at other trucks. In the past few months I've been driving our 2000 GMC Sierra Extended Cab 8-cyl 4WD. The mpg's in that are around 12. I am hoping to find another mid-size 4WD that I can use as work vehicle and a sales vehicle, as the need calls for it. Some have commented about the Ford Ranger positively. I was thinking either another Nissan (Frontier) or a Ranger. We are also considering a GMC mid-size. Should I go for the Ranger?

Sean


----------



## bruce56bb (Aug 19, 2006)

17.2 mpg on the tahoe. all were very pleased with that considering its weighs over 5600 lbs and that it is new and the powertrain isn't broken in yet.


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Aug 19, 2006)

seaken said:
			
		

> We are in the market for a replacement truck. I currently have a 1990 Nissan King Cab 4-cyl 4WD and I get about 18mpg. It is about time to retire it and we are looking at other trucks. In the past few months I've been driving our 2000 GMC Sierra Extended Cab 8-cyl 4WD. The mpg's in that are around 12. I am hoping to find another mid-size 4WD that I can use as work vehicle and a sales vehicle, as the need calls for it. Some have commented about the Ford Ranger positively. I was thinking either another Nissan (Frontier) or a Ranger. We are also considering a GMC mid-size. Should I go for the Ranger?
> 
> Sean



i have the 05, crew cab nissan 4x4, its a sweet truck. Definatly worth looking at. It comes with a pretty price tag too.


----------



## PAJerry (Aug 19, 2006)

I had a '94 Dodge Dakota work truck - 2.5L w/ 5 speed manual that got me 25 mpg going to and from work.  Not bad at all, but the engine rattled pretty bad.  My Prius gets a good 50+ mpg even on long trips.  Followed my son when he moved to Manhattan KS in July and got 51 on the 2000 mi trip.

  I wish someone would make a SMALL , efficient pick-up.  The Ford Ranger is about the only small one left and I hear it is going out of production next year.


----------



## Todd (Aug 19, 2006)

I have been temped a few times by those smaller pickups, but every time I load 3/4 cord of firewood into my F-250 PSD 4X4, I think to myself why? I get 20mpg highway, maybe a few mpg less than the Ranger, but I'd have to make twice as many trips in a Ranger. Another plus is "biodiesel". I'm getting close to taking the plunge into brewing the stuff.


----------



## bruce56bb (Aug 19, 2006)

jerry, i'm just down the road from manhattan, should've stopped by. is your son going to k-state? 
also, the weather was perfect here in july for moving(100*+ 80% humidity).


----------



## MountainStoveGuy (Aug 19, 2006)

bruce56bb said:
			
		

> jerry, i'm just down the road from manhattan, should've stopped by. is your son going to k-state?
> also, the weather was perfect here in july for moving(100*+ 80% humidity).


i miss the old flint hills, i lived in manhattan for 5 years. Yes it took me that long to get through K State.


----------



## pubah (Aug 20, 2006)

Craig, here is the real story.

The "Big Three's management did great jobs and hit it big. They stacked away $billions from large truck sales during the last decade. So what if they cut 21% not that demand is sharply down. It's what they should do. Honda, Toyota and Nissen management were so poor in predicting the future that they missed almost that huge market opportunity. BTW, they are now bragging that their newest  big trucks are finally as big as the "Big Three's" trucks.

A real problem at Ford and GM is not just too many over paid white collar people, it's their oppressive union contracts that make it almost impossible to respond to changes in demand. The world is flattening though and soon China will be a major supplier of US vehicles including a Chinese MG sports car that they will make in the US. The Chinese MG, like American made cars from Japanese and German companies will be built far away from union controlled states.

A bigger problem in management at the "Big three" is very cultural there. They design and build smaller cars as if they hate them and they have been that way for 50 years, not just during the run up in large truck sales.

The worst automotive problem for green consumers is that California environmental extremists have now made it impossible for manufacturers to bring in new small turbo diesel engines. These engines significantly reduce costs, global warming and allow the use of B99 Bio Diesel. We can't even get VW and Audi TDI diesels anymore thanks to these folks.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 20, 2006)

"A bigger problem in management at the “Big three” is very cultural there. They design and build smaller cars as if they hate them and they have been that way for 50 years, not just during the run up in large truck sales. "

They hate them because they cost damn near as much to build as the little ones.  And since everybody is sold on the idea that the only quality little ones will be built by somebody with English as a corporate second language then what choice did Detroit have but to build trucks?

I say it again. It got parked in everybody's brain in the 70's that rice burners were the highest quality cars on earth. Mercedes if you have the bucks. American manufacturers make as high a quality car as anybody on earth but if nobody believes it then they gotta build what people will buy from them. 

And ask Toyota about covering up quality problems. Three execs facing jail time as we speak.


----------



## PAJerry (Aug 20, 2006)

Bruce - Yep, going to grad school there.  It was 102 and humid when we unloaded the Penske van.  Give me PA anytime!  Manhattan is a really nice town with the trees and everything, it could pass for a town in PA or OH but the heat....  We are planning to go out there again next April.


----------



## webbie (Aug 20, 2006)

pubah said:
			
		

> Craig, here is the real story.
> 
> The worst automotive problem for green consumers is that California environmental extremists have now made it impossible for manufacturers to bring in new small turbo diesel engines. These engines significantly reduce costs, global warming and allow the use of B99 Bio Diesel. We can't even get VW and Audi TDI diesels anymore thanks to these folks.



Well, sometimes you throw part of the baby out with the bath water - but I am confident that diesels will be back.

The "real story" as you mention is much more complicated than your or my opinion. When jumping up and down about the unions, remember that it was Henry Ford himself who decided voluntarily to DOUBLE wages and add vast benefits because he thought his workers should be able to buy his cars and live decently. Unions formed partially in response to old Henry getting so busy that he let some of his brutal underlings run the show - which included beatings, coersion and various other labor methods....

Anyway, those same California crazies are also responsible for saving tens of thousands of people a year from lung cancer and other illnesses related to pollution. They are also responsible for what is probably the cleanest automobile fleet in the word, in my eyes an accomplishment we should be proud of. Our own EPA stoves are.....well, actually it was your home state crazies in Oregon who may have started this, but it was the Sierra Club who sued the EPA to make it national.

My point is only that we all reap the benefits of cleaner and more efficient technology. While you and I may live in relatively clean places, much of the US suffers from pollution and transportation is a big part of the picture.

That said, I would love to be able to buy a small clean diesel pickup - or find an old one and convert it to a Grease Car.

It is a push-pull between those who care about air quality and the (probably more powerful) combination of government, car companies and oil companies. All the real loopholes (like the SUV one) are promoted and legislated by this combination.


----------



## webbie (Aug 20, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> I say it again. It got parked in everybody's brain in the 70's that rice burners were the highest quality cars on earth. Mercedes if you have the bucks. American manufacturers make as high a quality car as anybody on earth but if nobody believes it then they gotta build what people will buy from them.
> 
> And ask Toyota about covering up quality problems. Three execs facing jail time as we speak.



So all those actual studies about initial quality and then about repair history mean nothing?

Mercedes and the European stuff went way down in quality - in my opinion because they got so complicated.....the Japanese seemed to be able to create simpler and more elegant stuff (Honda, for example).

My in-laws who live in the city hardly use a car....but they like GM, so they bought a 1990 Olds cutlass brand new (back when) ----that thing was rattling all over by the time it hit 22K and cost them big bucks to run to 60K....at that point you had to lift hard on the doors (coupe) to shut them. Then, when they moved to Fl, they gave it to my son with 70K.....it lived for about 10K more miles and then, while it still ran, we donated it to one of those Kidney Foundations.

On the other hand, my old Ford F-150's easily ran to 150K and more....and we once bought a 1967 Mercedes 190 (for $1500) that already had 160,000 miles on it...

When we got rich and stupid temporarily during the giant ice storm of 1994, I surprised Martha with a brand new Mercedes C280. As far as driving enjoyment it was TOPS....but that thing was in the repair shop every month.....we finally got rid of it for 10K a few years later.

It is actually sad looking at the American car dealerships around here. Many are closing and the others are empty - the sales people just sitting there ready to pounce on anyone who would dare to enter. The possible exception is Dodge, which seems to at least have some cars and trucks that have appeal.

Funny that Honda, Toyota and such are able to build cars with high priced American labor and parts......and still sell them reasonably...and they function well. Americans (and probably everyone else) like to blame all their woes on some lower or higher power (unions, welfare, THEM, etc.) - but the reality is that we rarely take the long term approach which is needed to assure our posterity (without invading others for oil, etc.)

Uh oh! , I though I put this in the Ash Can.....oh, it's Green Room.

Funny, but the compose reply screen shows Hearth Room - maybe a Forum Bug.


----------



## berlin (Aug 20, 2006)

"I have been temped a few times by those smaller pickups, but every time I load 3/4 cord of firewood into my F-250 PSD 4X4, I think to myself why? I get 20mpg highway, maybe a few mpg less than the Ranger, but I’d have to make twice as many trips in a Ranger."

exactly, why would i get a ranger, when i could get a 3/4 ton diesel pickup that will go a half a million miles without major problems (mabey a transmission at 250k miles) and still get 20ish mpg all while letting me be comfortable, have a full four doors and haul or tow just about anything i could want.


----------



## begreen (Aug 20, 2006)

pubah said:
			
		

> Craig, here is the real story.
> A real problem at Ford and GM is not just too many over paid white collar people, it's their oppressive union contracts that make it almost impossible to respond to changes in demand. The world is flattening though and soon China will be a major supplier of US vehicles including a Chinese MG sports car that they will make in the US. The Chinese MG, like American made cars from Japanese and German companies will be built far away from union controlled states.
> 
> The worst automotive problem for green consumers is that California environmental extremists have now made it impossible for manufacturers to bring in new small turbo diesel engines. These engines significantly reduce costs, global warming and allow the use of B99 Bio Diesel. We can't even get VW and Audi TDI diesels anymore thanks to these folks.



The Chinese are definitely thinking future. They have enacted very strict pollution controls for new vehicles. That sets them up to be prime competitor in future markets if they make a good product. In the meantime, year after year, US manufacturers have whined about regulation and fought to turn back pollution controls and fuel efficiency. This is just plain short-sighted and now they are paying the price. Fossil fuel is not going to get cheaper and most everyone wants cleaner air to breathe and a healthier future for their kids. It's time for the US to get with the program and I applaud Calif. for leading the way. 

RE: Diesel. Now that the US is switching to low-sulfur diesel, they should be showing up in more states. I agree with Craig that we may see many more models in the next few years.


----------



## Rhone (Aug 21, 2006)

Kiplinger predicts Ford is going to be the one to go.  When the government wanted to impose higher standards and more efficiency Ford was the key player stepping forward saying it would cost American jobs having to spend money on researching efficiency when the money needs to go towards the development of maximizing SUV production lines.   So, the government got scared and stepped back and Ford and all the others are paying the price.  Now, that their SUV sales have tanked they're coming to the government for aid to "catch up" on the research for more efficient vehicles and they're losing American jobs anyway because they refused to have the foresight to see where the future was going.  That was on the radio, someone talking about where the American automotive industry and they were very upset with Ford in particular as they pointed out it was almost them exclusively that ruined America's chance to get ahead and be leaders in automotive efficiency technology threatening that American jobs would be lost and the research money instead needs to be spent on SUV production improvements.


----------



## saichele (Aug 22, 2006)

The real problem is that while the plants are closed, they're still paying 95% wages to all the UAW guys, so it's not like they're saving big money.  Not sure they're saving any money, just avoiding total saturation of the market.

Local rural dealer is leasing F150 4x4 4 doors for $1000 down/100/month, f250 4x4 for 1000down 199/mo.  That's desperate.  And maybe a little tempting...  Until you pointed out the high side problem.  Absolutely right.

Personally, the 96 Explorer v6 just refuses to die.  Two trips in the last 2 weeks @23 mpg highway.  And the 92 f150 with the 300-6 pulls stumps, trailers, and gets 15-18mpg while doing it.

And Henry Ford looked at the UAW as a betrayal - he thought he was doing everything he could for his workers.  Arguably he was.  Ford was certainly friendlier than the competition, although I'm sure he regarded them as a means of production, same as the plant equipment.  

Just add Ford to the list of stocks that have tanked - Palm, VW, now Ford.  Good thing ADM is hanging in there...

Steve


----------



## begreen (Aug 22, 2006)

It's a sad statement in this day and age that we've gone from clunky typewriters to sleek laptops. Communications technology continues to break its own records. Yet the 1908 Model T got 25 mpg and the EPA reports 2004 car average mileage at 20.8 mpg.


----------



## JBinKC (Aug 22, 2006)

I agree Ford or GM made mistakes when they abandoned development of the all electric vehicle for their future. Although they are overpriced the new all electric Tesla motors vehicle gets a 250 mile range on a charge and has an operating cost of about one cent per mile. Its too bad Tesla lacks the economies of scale like GM or Ford as I see that car as the winner for the next 50 years of transportation.

However, given the companies had the highest cost structures in the industry it made sense for them to milk a cash cow by making large vehicles as their profit margins are 10 times or more of an economy car. 

 I think both companies will eventually reorganize by declaring bankrupcy so they can get out of their labor/pension obligations and re-emerge as a much smaller secondary companies that will totally outsource their production in the future to continue as a going concern.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 22, 2006)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> It's a sad statement in this day and age that we've gone from clunky typewriters to sleek laptops. Communications technology continues to break its own records. Yet the 1908 Model T got 25 mpg and the EPA reports 2004 car average mileage at 20.8 mpg.



It's them power windows that do it.


----------



## precaud (Aug 22, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> It's them power windows that do it.


Actually, it's the weight.


----------



## saichele (Aug 22, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Went to the Rouge Assembly Plant tour Saturday as part of a trip to Motown, and if oyu have the opportunity it is pretty impressive.  

One of the stations where they install airbags had a placard proudly proclaiming "Airbags save over 500 lives per year inthe US".  

At several hundred per airbag, and an additional 50 or 70 pounds of stuff, kind of makes one wonder if it's really worthwhile.  Yea yea, what price human life, yada yada...  But spread that over a few million vehicles sold per year, and the additional costs, in initial price, in gas, and in repair in non-critical deployments is a big cost.  Wonder what each of those 500 people is worth?  

Steve


----------



## skypager (Aug 22, 2006)

[quote author="Steve" date="1156262631]One of the stations where they install airbags had a placard proudly proclaiming "Airbags save over 500 lives per year inthe US". [/quote]

Can they really know that?  Is that just a statistic base on there were 500 less deaths last year in car accidents than the year previously.  I just recently had an accident recently were the air bags deployed and no one was there investigating weather the air bag saved my life.  Honestly, since I had my seat belt on and it wasn't an extreme hit the only thing the air bag did was split my lip.

You can pretty build up any statistic if you already know what outcome you want and approach it biasly.  I'm not saying that air bags aren't a good thing.... just that I don't think their as integral as some would have you believe.


----------



## minesmoria (Aug 22, 2006)

In the news i here about gmc and ford cutting jobs ect, but what about dodge i never here any thing about them shutting plants down are they the one company thats doing okay?


----------



## bruce56bb (Aug 22, 2006)

i'm not sure why the media doesn't bash daimler/chrysler like they do gm and ford. consider this, in the auto industry a 60 day supply of inventory is considered ideal, dodge has an over 200 day supply of durangos. that's almost 7 months worth of durangos. 
i sense a production cut coming.


----------



## suematteva (Aug 23, 2006)

Saw an article today on ford..they are coming out with new diesel in f-250 f-350 current is 6 litre this one is 6.3 supposed to be cleaner (same as gas emissions) and more fuel efficient..they would not say any more until launch in Dec or Jan for competitive reasons..


----------



## webbie (Aug 23, 2006)

Steve said:
			
		

> At several hundred per airbag, and an additional 50 or 70 pounds of stuff, kind of makes one wonder if it's really worthwhile.  Yea yea, what price human life, yada yada...  But spread that over a few million vehicles sold per year, and the additional costs, in initial price, in gas, and in repair in non-critical deployments is a big cost.  Wonder what each of those 500 people is worth?
> 
> Steve



They don't tell you how many injuries they prevent or make less serious. I suspect it is in the tens of thousands, considering my son already was saved from bad injury twice by them. What is the cost to society of brain dead or quadrapeligics that can be avoided?

I have read extensively about that plant and it is facinating. The ultimate industrial facility. Coal and iron ore/rubber in one end and cars rolling out the other! A true American accomplishment. For all his missteps, Henry Ford was truly a great man.


----------



## webbie (Aug 23, 2006)

RE; Air bags.....

You can bet insurance companies have a BIG dog in the fight, and they declare that air bags are good....they have no reason to twist stats...they simply save money on medical bills, lawsuits and death payouts.

As far as effectiveness, here is the abstract(note - air bags have improved since this study):
For those who don't want to read, air bags reduced death 63%, belts 72% and the two combined more than 80%. That is some serious reduction!

Department of Emergency Medicine, Center for Injury Prevention Research and Education, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA. ccrandall@salud.unm.edu

To assess the efficacy of occupant protection systems, the authors measured the mortality reduction associated with air bag deployment and seat belt use for drivers involved in head-on passenger car collisions in the United States. They used a matched case-control design of all head-on collisions involving two passenger cars reported to the Fatality Analysis Reporting System in 1992-1997, and driver mortality differences between the paired crash vehicles for air bag deployment and seat belt use were measured with matched-pair odds ratios. Conditional logistic regression was used to adjust for multiple effects. There were 9,859 head-on collisions involving 19,718 passenger cars and drivers. Air bag deployment reduced mortality 63% (crude odds ratio (OR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32, 0.42), while lap-shoulder belt use reduced mortality 72% (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.31). In a conditional logistic model that adjusted for vehicle (rollover, weight, age) and driver (age, sex) factors, air bags (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.87) and any combination of seat belts (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.29) were both associated with reduced mortality. Combined air bag and seat belt use reduced mortality by more than 80% (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.25). Thus, this study confirms the independent effect of air bags and seat belts in reducing mortality.


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 23, 2006)

Yeah my wife had a head on with a guy in an old full size Ford LTD a few years ago. She went forward so hard that the shoulder belt in the Lancer cracked her chest bone. She will not even think about getting behind the wheel of a car without an airbag now.


----------



## saichele (Aug 23, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> RE; Air bags.....
> 
> You can bet insurance companies have a BIG dog in the fight, and they declare that air bags are good....they have no reason to twist stats...they simply save money on medical bills, lawsuits and death payouts.
> 
> ...



72% to belts, plus 63% of the remaining 28% gets you to almost 90%.  But the marginal improvment is only about 18% out of the total pot.

But the insurance companies do have a huge interest in this, but it's theirs not ours.  They pay out less for any slight improvement in vehicle safety.  Since they don't pay the up front costs, it's free to them.  Once there's actually an accident, sure, the couple thousand to have the interior put back together is trivial.  About the same as the respray anymore.

Steve


----------



## mikedengineer (Aug 23, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Yeah my wife had a head on with a guy in an old full size Ford LTD a few years ago. She went forward so hard that the shoulder belt in the Lancer cracked her chest bone. She will not even think about getting behind the wheel of a car without an airbag now.



Cars now adays are made so they crumble (coming to a slower stop).  Which is one reason they are slightly safer now.  Kinda like hitting a brick wall with you fist.  Obviously the sudden stop will be very bad, but if there was some foam or whatever to slow down the impact, it would not be as bad.  The old  cars where build so dang strong that they would not crumble (as much) and thus putting more force into YOU.  Race cars are like that.  Ever see how they explode when they crash, that actually takes up allot of the forces involved in a crash. 

But yes, without a doubt airbags help absorb that impact.

-Mike


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 23, 2006)

This was an '87 Dodge Lancer. It did the crumbling bit real well. The only thing we could determine that was salvageable from it was the radio. It knocked the engine back so far and hard that it demolished the major bone in her foot that was on the accelerator and broke her ankle. The trunk was covered with battery acid. She went so hard against that shoulder belt that she had imprints of the webbing in her skin. It was really impossible to determine if the belt broke the chest bone or if it actually stretched just enough for her to impact the steering wheel hub. Fortunately it didn't do the Chevy truck trick and drive the steering column through her.

It was an ideal candidate for air bags. The first cop on the scene told me later that it was the only one like that he had seen that had a live person in the car when he arrived.


----------



## mikedengineer (Aug 23, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> This was an '87 Dodge Lancer. It did the crumbling bit real well. The only thing we could determine that was salvageable from it was the radio. It knocked the engine back so far and hard that it demolished the major bone in her foot that was on the accelerator and broke her ankle. The trunk was covered with battery acid. She went so hard against that shoulder belt that she had imprints of the webbing in her skin. It was really impossible to determine if the belt broke the chest bone or if it actually stretched just enough for her to impact the steering wheel hub. Fortunately it didn't do the Chevy truck trick and drive the steering column through her.
> 
> It was an ideal candidate for air bags. The first cop on the scene told me later that it was the only one like that he had seen that had a live person in the car when he arrived.



OMG!  She is very lucky.


----------



## Burn-1 (Aug 25, 2006)

For the next week and a half Ford is gong to be practically giving away
cars and trucks in the 2006 model year. 

0 percent for up to 72 months on most Ford, Lincoln and Mercury models.

For most U.S. auto manufacturers in recent years they have made more on their
financing operations than they have from car sales. So this is another example of
how bad it is getting.

Ford 0 percent financing nationwide promotion


----------



## precaud (Aug 25, 2006)

The Employee Pricing orgy last year was the real giveaway... when I saw GM do it in July but not Ford, I knew they would soon follow, so I ordered my Ranger pickup exactly like I wanted it. It arrived 7 weeks later right in the middle of the selloff. Even though the dealer had quoted me much higher, they were obligated to sell it at the employee deal. It resulted in a 29.1% discount.


----------



## restorer (Sep 7, 2006)

Well mpg is important, but cost per mile is more important. I drive a 90 Chevy stretch van, ram injected at about 15 MPG. Carries as much as most 1 ton trucks, but rides like a stretched limo. Cost me $800 from a very well maintained fleet. Point is: Why must we buy new to save? My last new truck cost 18,100 in 1985. Friends thought i was nuts. That truck got retired two years ago at about 400,00 miles, two rebuilds and three transmissions. The same truck now goes for $43,000. Where is the logic in buying a new one? New paint and body are driving the industry. Do you think in one year that  Ford, GM, or Dodge can come up with anything that justifies a $40,000 price tag?


----------



## mikedengineer (Sep 7, 2006)

I'm sure you all heard the news that Mr. Ford is not going to be in his postion anymore, but stepping down to let someone (from boeing) else take control.  About time...

-Mike


----------



## webbie (Sep 7, 2006)

UncleRich said:
			
		

> Well mpg is important, but cost per mile is more important. I drive a 90 Chevy stretch van, ram injected at about 15 MPG. Carries as much as most 1 ton trucks, but rides like a stretched limo. Cost me $800 from a very well maintained fleet. Point is: Why must we buy new to save? My last new truck cost 18,100 in 1985. Friends thought i was nuts. That truck got retired two years ago at about 400,00 miles, two rebuilds and three transmissions. The same truck now goes for $43,000. Where is the logic in buying a new one? New paint and body are driving the industry. Do you think in one year that  Ford, GM, or Dodge can come up with anything that justifies a $40,000 price tag?



Correct you are. When manufacturing energy is considered, your course of action might be the best. And, we have some a long way - remember people wanted a new car every two years? 

But no matter what you do or I do, the mass market for cars - driven largely by marketing - is going to continue....and, is also going to be the prime place where savings can be had (the big picture).


----------



## DriftWood (Sep 18, 2006)

Shane said:
			
		

> "Dodge what can happen to Dodge?" ;-)



 I should have bought Chrysler stock at $6.00 in 1980 instead of that $5,000 USD new Plymouth Horizon.  My uncle said the US Government would never let Chrysler go under. He was right Is the US Government AKA the US Tax Paying Public going to bail-out any of the big three this time around??


----------



## Homefire (Sep 18, 2006)

DriftWood said:
			
		

> Shane said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Isn't that why the price of oil is dropping like a rock, so the big 3 can have time to readjust their lineups?


----------

