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.
Ford - Stupid, Stupid - 21% production cut
- Thread starter webbie
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
pubah said:
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.
BrotherBart said:
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.
"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.
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.
pubah said:
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.
- Nov 21, 2005
- 827
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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
[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.
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.
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?
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.
i sense a production cut coming.
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..
Steve said:
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.
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. [email protected]
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.
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. [email protected]
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.
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.
Webmaster said:
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
BrotherBart said:
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
- Status