Ford Is Plummeting

mk... American cars are unreliable pieces of crap excluding the catera and the vibe and the lotus<-both uses zz engine.

Now see, I have no problem with this statement because you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, the Lotus car company is based in the UK.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.......

I disagree Bikeman. RWD is a much more robust system than FWD. FWD will not take near the abuse of a RWD system. How many in city cab companies or police departments do you see that choose to use FWD vehicles?

More companies are or will be marketing the RWD models. People are tired of the poor reliability and cost of repair. Manufacturers liked the front wheel drive concept because it simplified and took a lot of the expense out of the manufacture process. I drive 1 hour plus into one of the snow belt areas of Massachusetts every day and I would prefer RWD for the controllability in a slide and absence of torque steer.....yeah, I don't like ABS either

Of course there have been a few problematic RWD transmissions along the way also but the cost to repair/replace is not nearly as expensive as a FWD repair/replacement.

I think much of the American transmission failures can be traced back to place of manufacture and lack of quality controls. Many of the problematic Chrysler transmissions were built in Brazil and I don't want anything that was built in China thanks.

It's a very homogenized business today. Seems like every car manufacturer owns a piece of other car companies and the average person doesn't know what they are buying anymore. I would find it helpful if dealers were open about where the product and its components originate. I don't want to have to depend on reading every auto publication to know where the cars and components originate.

As it stands today I will not buy an American car because it's a crap shoot in terms of reliability. Because I do a lot of work on cars many people come to me with their problems for advice......only one was Toyota related and it was a faulty temp control valve on the heater of a 93 Corolla. As an American I would love to be able to say that I own a great American car...I'd be proud....just can't do it. I can't afford to pay all of the money and then have to pay for the ridiculous repairs soon after purchase.

Prior to this 7th gen Corolla, my best commuter car was a 1989 Mercury Grand Marquis, bought with 125K miles for $1600 and junked at 250K miles. Great car but still not as dependable as the Corolla which was bought at 105K miles for $4000 and is showing no signs of slowing down 4 years later at 195K miles. Look into Grand Marquis' starting in 1992, frame rails rotting out, intake manifolds cracking, air suspension problems, $100 for a radiator hose.....not your father's Grand Marquis. If it's true, I'm not surprised that the Americans had their hand in the development of the 1zz-FE engine. It doesn't appear that the 1ZZ engine is nearly as robust as the 4AFE and 7AFE engines. I'll be listening for status along the way but I'll probably be skipping over the 8th gen next time.

Jay in MA

RWD vehicles have the additional problems with their longer driveshafts and CV joints, as well as their differentials.FWD is usually more reliable on their drive trains.

I would be driving an American car, like Ford or Chevy, if I thought they were reliable and as dependable as a Corolla.

Actually they did try that, it was called "Geo". The problem was that Geo failed miserably even though the Metro and the Prizm were the exact same cars as their Japanese counterparts. Chevy even tried to salvage the Prizm after Geo was dissolved by marketing it under their own emblem, but it continued to lose out in sales compared to the Corolla. You tell people you're driving a Prizm, they look at you like you're a cheap idiot who likes junky cars. You swap the emblems and tell them you're driving a Corolla, it suddenly you turn into a smart consumer who is driving a reliable, dependable car. What is funny is that the Prizm beats the Corolla in several aspects including its much better sound system. In spite of this, the resale value of the Prizm is much lower compared to a Corolla.

When it comes down to it, American cars carry a stereotype with them for poor quality, no matter how good they are. I'm sure there are a few good American cars out there, but they are just too far in between to make an impact on the market and the stereotype as a whole.

Actually they did try that, it was called "Geo". The problem was that Geo failed miserably even though the Metro and the Prizm were the exact same cars as their Japanese counterparts. Chevy even tried to salvage the Prizm after Geo was dissolved by marketing it under their own emblem, but it continued to lose out in sales compared to the Corolla. You tell people you're driving a Prizm, they look at you like you're a cheap idiot who likes junky cars. You swap the emblems and tell them you're driving a Corolla, it suddenly you turn into a smart consumer who is driving a reliable, dependable car. What is funny is that the Prizm beats the Corolla in several aspects including its much better sound system. In spite of this, the resale value of the Prizm is much lower compared to a Corolla.

When it comes down to it, American cars carry a stereotype with them for poor quality, no matter how good they are. I'm sure there are a few good American cars out there, but they are just too far in between to make an impact on the market and the stereotype as a whole.

Yea, I agree with the need that american car companies need to build its rep again, even though they are practically similar to japanese counterparts. I think what everybody is saying about this topic is that Ford and some other American companies likes balls in their mouth.

Actually they did try that, it was called "Geo". The problem was that Geo failed miserably even though the Metro and the Prizm were the exact same cars as their Japanese counterparts. Chevy even tried to salvage the Prizm after Geo was dissolved by marketing it under their own emblem, but it continued to lose out in sales compared to the Corolla. You tell people you're driving a Prizm, they look at you like you're a cheap idiot who likes junky cars. You swap the emblems and tell them you're driving a Corolla, it suddenly you turn into a smart consumer who is driving a reliable, dependable car. What is funny is that the Prizm beats the Corolla in several aspects including its much better sound system. In spite of this, the resale value of the Prizm is much lower compared to a Corolla.

When it comes down to it, American cars carry a stereotype with them for poor quality, no matter how good they are. I'm sure there are a few good American cars out there, but they are just too far in between to make an impact on the market and the stereotype as a whole.

The gas-filler door for the Prizm is made out of steel; while the Corolla is made out of plastic. It's ironic how the "cheaper" Prizm is made out of better quality material.

I would have to say one great example of a reliable American car was the DeLorean DMC-12. "Cheapness" and simplicity on a car definately does not mean its a piece of junk, quite the opposite. Going back to history for reference, one of the key reasons the Germans lost in WWII on the Eastern front was because they overdesigned their tanks, trucks, and weapons. All those extra parts actually made it more difficult to maintain and repair. The harsh conditions often made things jam up and fail. You compare that to Russian trucks and tanks like the T-34 which was a very simple designed tank compared to the Panzers. That was why it could not only be produced in huge quanities with relative ease, but it also could be maintained and repaired much more easily.

John DeLorean built the DMC-12 on this concept. He designed the DeLorean to be both a luxurious and sporty, yet simple car. He didn't want to have lots of fancy equipment and overdesign because he knew it would just mean that much more could go wrong. Its a shame his company failed so quickly. It really could have grown into a great American car company. I have a friend down my street who has a DeLorean and restored it. Its actually a VERY nice car to drive. Even for an automatic, it has a very smooth shift. The handling on it is superb even though it uses a rear-mounted engine. He installed a modern catalytic converter on it which allows the engine's originally underpowered 130 HP to shoot up to about 175-180HP, as well as better fuel economy at about 22/27 he estimates from the original 18/24. He restored/rebuilt it from a previous owner who had it 20 years until 2001. He reset the odometer to 0 when it was rebuilt and has since put on about 53k miles. In all, he says its a very reliable car compared to most other American cars (he previously drove Fords and Chevys). I think the problem Ford and other American companies are doing is trying to overdesign their cars to make them better than Japanese and German ones. I blame this for one of the reasons why American cars are such pieces of junk and fail so much.

Twink! what have you done?!

I love forums. Its a place where you can put down your opinion and not get the crap beaten out of you physically (sticks and stones?). Kinda feels like a bunch of drunks trying to say, "Listen to me, b/c I'm RIGHT!!"

heh, guess I will put in my 2bits again... hmmm... 2bits the other day, another 2 bits...

I still dont know why everyone says that the US domestics are crappy. Many of them are now engineering overseas in Asia and Europe (and Australia).

Most of the Japanese cars are built here too.

Further, Toyota, Nissan, Isuzu, Mitsubishi all have engineering centers in Michigan, and Honda is located in Ohio. They are not at the point where everything is engineered here, but a lot of it is.

Many of my friends visit these tech centers on a weekly basis to make sure that their product will work properly on the new cars.

What is a "complex" car? vs a "simple" car?

All cars now adays are "complex" compared to 30yrs ago. Toyota's Prius is an extremely "complex" car, yet its a 4banger.

Oh, and someone said that Nissans suck. THEY DO NOT! and that they are the Japanese Ford. Nissan (with a short exception in the late 90s) has always been the #2 car maker in Japan... oh, hey they are kinda like Ford.... Ford is the #2 car maker in the US... although Toyota out sold them in Jan.

I would buy a Nissan any day above a Honda, and with currently styling, over a Toyota.

The only reason I would consider another Toyota vehicle for my next car, is if Toyota is my customer (which is why i have my truck).

I love my Nissans. My SR20 was awsome, RB28 was the baddest engine I owned, the old VG was my favorite V6. My favorite is still the L-type from the 60s and 70s. And the new VQ rocks!

Someone might have said it, but Toyota and Nissan both have V8s for production vehicles.

Honda has V8 racing engines.

(But I want a Hemi)

Oh yeah, something about RWD and FWD. I dont care. They all have their pros and cons.

I like RWD b/c that's what i used to race. I had a "thing" against FWD, until i rented a Neon and drove the crap out of it. I found that there are many other things I can do to make driving fun.

As for precieved image, several years ago, Hyundai (or was it Kia... or both?) came out with their 100,000mile/10yr warranty. When Hyundai launched here in the 80s, they brought some real... cheap cars. and that image stuck. but as their quality improved, and they came out with a warranty to back them up, their market share has been steadily increasing.

So then, why did DCX decrease their warranty from 7yrs to 3? cost savings....

Finally,

not being a delorean fan, i dont rem the details, but didnt john delorean end up pennyless and millions in debt? as for the delorean dmc12 , less than 10k were built in the 2-3yrs the company existed. (please correct me if i am wrong). it was overpriced vehicle, compared to other sports cars (corvette, porsche, datsun z, rx-7, celica, etc.), during a difficult econimic time.

and this ends my rant for this week.

have a good weekend!

tdk.

Um..Knight, it was me that recalled me and my friends labeling Nissans the japanese fords. I'm sure they were good before and blah blah blah, but we are on the topic of modern, current automobile makes. And as of right now, they suck like fords.

Ford used to be very good until now. I think Ford enjoys balls in their mouth soooooo much, that they don't even really research how to make their cars better. Instead, I think they are devoting way too much money into the feely feely womanly like spending of advertisement and commercials; all to make a buck. Like I said before, Fords are just INEFFICIENT! no other word at all....just.....inefficient. 4.6L making 220hp is rediculous.

Dont get me wrong though: americans can make good cars, its just the American Companies cannot or are not willing to until....o wow....we aren't selling. It took that to make them realize that they have to look elsewhere to find help (ie. toyota). The grand prix and the mustang feels extremely cheap inside. If I can wiggle plastic and hear alot of creaking, then it doesn't pass my personal test. My corolla has majority plastic interior and it doesn't squeak or creak as much. I think Ford needs some glue to keep their pieces of jack together (interior, exterior, mechanically)

Just saw a bloomberg article on GM & Ford sales-and its not good:

"Ford sales fell 19 percent, and GM dropped 17 percent, prompting a deeper cut in GM's North American production. A 9.5 percent gain at Toyota Motor Corp. and 3.2 percent increase at DaimlerChrysler AG pushed Ford to No. 4 behind those automakers in the U.S. for the second month ever..Ford last week reported a $12.7 billion loss for 2006, its worst year ever. GM lost more than $13 billion in the seven quarters through last Sept. 30."

Reacting to this, Ford & GM executives, in their wisdom, decide to cut low-margin rental-fleet sales:

"The U.S. automakers want to focus on more-profitable individual customers as fleet buyers typically get discounts because they buy in quantity."

What does this mean? Stock analysts speculate Ford doesn't want a crapload of used cars being dumped on the market from fleet buyers (Avis, Hertz) to compete with new car sales. Better to have no sale than a low-profit sale that will bite them later.

Expect alot more advertising to get the 'high-profit' individual buyer (read as "sucker" ) into the showroom. Nice shell game.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=axcJdEYNcsY8

Just saw a bloomberg article on GM & Ford sales-and its not good:

"Ford sales fell 19 percent, and GM dropped 17 percent, prompting a deeper cut in GM's North American production. A 9.5 percent gain at Toyota Motor Corp. and 3.2 percent increase at DaimlerChrysler AG pushed Ford to No. 4 behind those automakers in the U.S. for the second month ever..Ford last week reported a $12.7 billion loss for 2006, its worst year ever. GM lost more than $13 billion in the seven quarters through last Sept. 30."

Reacting to this, Ford & GM executives, in their wisdom, decide to cut low-margin rental-fleet sales:

"The U.S. automakers want to focus on more-profitable individual customers as fleet buyers typically get discounts because they buy in quantity."

What does this mean? Stock analysts speculate Ford doesn't want a crapload of used cars being dumped on the market from fleet buyers (Avis, Hertz) to compete with new car sales. Better to have no sale than a low-profit sale that will bite them later.

Expect alot more advertising to get the 'high-profit' individual buyer (read as "sucker" ) into the showroom. Nice shell game.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=axcJdEYNcsY8

They are being outsold by the foreign market.

Maybe they should make a better car?

I think Ford depends too much on truck and SUV sales.

When they need a good car to infuse excitement in the public I think they turn to something like the Fusion which as I understand it is really a Mazda in Ford drag.

I recently had a low mileage 1998 Ranger (Mazda). Honestly the worst vehicle I've ever owned.

As much as I'm not wild about American cars anymore, I think Chrysler might be the best of the three in the USA. My wife drives a 1996 Plymouth Voyager with 115K miles which has been remarkably reliable but it also uses the 3.0 Mitsubishi engine. Prior to that we had a 1988 Plymouth Reliant K car 2.5 liter that I sold with 120K miles. That car was very reliable as well. We bought these from my next door neighbor when he was ready for a new one.

Just saw a bloomberg article on GM & Ford sales-and its not good:

"Ford sales fell 19 percent, and GM dropped 17 percent, prompting a deeper cut in GM's North American production. A 9.5 percent gain at Toyota Motor Corp. and 3.2 percent increase at DaimlerChrysler AG pushed Ford to No. 4 behind those automakers in the U.S. for the second month ever..Ford last week reported a $12.7 billion loss for 2006, its worst year ever. GM lost more than $13 billion in the seven quarters through last Sept. 30."

Reacting to this, Ford & GM executives, in their wisdom, decide to cut low-margin rental-fleet sales:

"The U.S. automakers want to focus on more-profitable individual customers as fleet buyers typically get discounts because they buy in quantity."

What does this mean? Stock analysts speculate Ford doesn't want a crapload of used cars being dumped on the market from fleet buyers (Avis, Hertz) to compete with new car sales. Better to have no sale than a low-profit sale that will bite them later.

Expect alot more advertising to get the 'high-profit' individual buyer (read as "sucker" ) into the showroom. Nice shell game.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=axcJdEYNcsY8

Not good for Ford and GM.

 

They are being outsold by the foreign market.

Maybe they should make a better car?

One way you can tell a bad car company is when they have to constantly re-name their marks and lineups every 10 years like Ford. The problem isn't that Ford can't make good cars, its that they make a good one then get lazy, not continuing up on it. The Ford Taurus was a highly advanced piece of engineering when it first came out in the 80s (as we can clearly see from an American classic called ROBOCOP!), but as time went on, Ford neglected it and let it lose out to the Camry and Accord. Ford thinks they can simply invent a great car and expect it to carry on for decades without maintaining it. By the turn of the millenium, the Taurus had turned from an advanced car into an archaic piece of junk. They need to reinvent it as "the fusion" to make it both catchy and different. The Fusion is probably also a great car, but my guess it that in 10 years, its also going to be neglected and become a relic like the Taurus.

Of course, its not fair to simply say this is a Ford effect. It happens to other car companies like Pontiac (GM) which has recently been forced to overhaul their lineup to this new "G" format. I don't know if they are trying to emmulate Infiniti or what. A closer example to our home is how Toyota had to redo the "Echo" into the "Yaris". Acura also has had a recent history of constantly renaming and reinventing their cars because they are losing out to Lexus. Its simply a phenomenon to note when a car company is failing in their marketing.

I think Ford depends too much on truck and SUV sales.

When they need a good car to infuse excitement in the public I think they turn to something like the Fusion which as I understand it is really a Mazda in Ford drag.

I recently had a low mileage 1998 Ranger (Mazda). Honestly the worst vehicle I've ever owned.

As much as I'm not wild about American cars anymore, I think Chrysler might be the best of the three in the USA. My wife drives a 1996 Plymouth Voyager with 115K miles which has been remarkably reliable but it also uses the 3.0 Mitsubishi engine. Prior to that we had a 1988 Plymouth Reliant K car 2.5 liter that I sold with 120K miles. That car was very reliable as well. We bought these from my next door neighbor when he was ready for a new one.

Just saw a bloomberg article on GM & Ford sales-and its not good:

"Ford sales fell 19 percent, and GM dropped 17 percent, prompting a deeper cut in GM's North American production. A 9.5 percent gain at Toyota Motor Corp. and 3.2 percent increase at DaimlerChrysler AG pushed Ford to No. 4 behind those automakers in the U.S. for the second month ever..Ford last week reported a $12.7 billion loss for 2006, its worst year ever. GM lost more than $13 billion in the seven quarters through last Sept. 30."

Reacting to this, Ford & GM executives, in their wisdom, decide to cut low-margin rental-fleet sales:

"The U.S. automakers want to focus on more-profitable individual customers as fleet buyers typically get discounts because they buy in quantity."

What does this mean? Stock analysts speculate Ford doesn't want a crapload of used cars being dumped on the market from fleet buyers (Avis, Hertz) to compete with new car sales. Better to have no sale than a low-profit sale that will bite them later.

Expect alot more advertising to get the 'high-profit' individual buyer (read as "sucker" ) into the showroom. Nice shell game.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=axcJdEYNcsY8

Not good for Ford and GM.

 

They are being outsold by the foreign market.

Maybe they should make a better car?

I got all the engine parts from the junkyard and repaired the car.

I sold it for $1500. I didn't drive it much, but I did like the body style, at the time.