I also think it would have been really cool if they went across the board in the other direction. Instead of the Red and Chamois having the reverse black it could have had all red interior like this.

 

That brings back memories, my '65 had a blue interior. Yes I agree I think all red would look good as an interior option. Especially that red as opposed to the red they now offer.

BB

 

I agree, but the beans counters would hate it. Too many unique parts. It is cheap to offer seats in many colors, but costs more to fabricate parts and assemble cars with dashboards, steering wheels, etc. in more than one color. That is why they are all black these days on most cars.

 

You'd deny that fire burns while somebody held your hand under a blow torch if it would it would support your argument.
Ha! You're the master of twisting or just plain ignoring any evidence or articles I have included links to that disprove your rhetoric. Your "plain talk" about Ford IS 98% negative.

Way to be supportive!!! Only a true fan would constantly beat the dead horse, bringing up past mistakes and constantly nitpick products to death, while ignoring any successes Only a "true fan" help would help Ford by telling others that Ford's products are "substandard"

20/20 Hindsight is exactly what you're offering now...

Yeah I did miss that one. But I don't know the whole story so I can't say it's all Ford's fault these Mustang didn't start.

How nice of you to leave out the link in my quote to the Business Week article that says that the Explorer, while being a class leading product, was causing Ford to lose big chunks of sales and market share due to the rise in gas prices , and the popularity of SUVs waning in general. Ignore any influence world event's might have on Ford; it's all their fault!!!

I thought you said "negative perceptions" weren't contributing to Ford's troubles?

Yes I agree.

And how is that possible when different executives are come in, make huge changes that are unsuccessful, (Nasser, and to some extent Trottman), get booted, then others are left to deal with the mess (Bill Ford, Mullally, Fields)...
I've never said they don't need good products. I'm saying they have some good products now that are unfairly slighted by the public due to lackluster PR, marketing, or poor public perception. They need good products and good marketing!

Ha ha, how nice of you to leave out chunks of my reply to make it sound like this was the first time I admitted Ford has made some mistakes...

I wasn't blaming "public perception" in regards to the Lincoln LS, I blaming lack of the public knowledge of the LS's existence in the first place, due to the lack of marketing.

Because you said so, huh? The world's not just black and white; there are a lot of factors that contribute to whether a product is successful or not, with quality being one of the major ones.

You keep insisting your a "Ford Fan", yet you haven't bought any of their new products, and keep griping about their quality, and you want them to lose sales?
Lost sales translates into less profit, less profit translates into having no money to develop and improve their products.
I guess if you saw a man dying in the steet after being stabbed you'd stab him some more to help him feel better...

 

Woopie do, so 5 Mustangs won't start on dealers lots! Like that never happened to other brands of cars that haven't been run in a while. Let me tell you a little thing. When any car isn't run for a period of time, the battery will eventually not have enough juice to start the car. Plus, with cars on lots, you have many people going in and out, playing with buttons, switches, mirrors, power seats, you name it. When the power seats, mirrors & such are used without actually starting and running a car? This too will run down a battery. Its like this for every car. The cars in most showrooms have the batteries disconnected for this sole purpose. We keep the batteries connected, but in time, these cars inside, will go dead, and need a jump. Heck, our 5 Expeditions, with all those gizmos in them, they always needed a jump, since no one ever looked at them. When no one looks at cars, no one drives them. Hence, a possible dead battery. This is just a silly thing to complain about with the Mustang.

Now, saying that, you didn't at all go into detail why they didn't start? What was the problem, if I may ask?

 

Don't know what the problem was. I'm assuming, as you correctly pointed out, that it was probably a dead battery issue due to not being run. I felt badly for the sales guy, and personally, would have been ****ed that prominently displayed cars - five of 'em - weren't checked more often for precisely that issue.

 

You're going to have to do a LOT better if you ever hope to defeat me in a debate (which seems to be your intention). Let's look at but two of your statements above as examples, shall we (I don't have the time or desire to go through the whole sorry lot of 'em)?

You cite an article about how the rise in gas prices thwarted sales of Ford's bread & butter SUVs, right? Fair enough. What you FAILED to mention was how the company was so short-sighted that THEY failed to have ANY sort of contingency plan for this, much less a simple strategy like developing CARS PEOPLE WANT TO BUY. Instead, they rode the truck gravy train practically into the ground; always looking for the quick profit to line the pockets of executives. It's not first time this has happened. They were in rough shape financially in the early 80s, too, and it took the Taurus in 85/86 to pull them out. Then they let that car languish as they sat back on their laurels once again. Apparently, they learned nothing.

And you have the temerity to blame increasing gas prices on Ford's current woes? I blame bad management, who - by Mulally's OWN recent admission - DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A BLOODY BUISNESS PLAN!!!!!!!!! Read: no long term plan. Didn't have one in the early 80s, and apparently STILL didn't have one as of last month, even in the middle of their so-called "Bold Moves/Way Forward" marketing gobbledygook.

In your second statement above, you are referencing my comment: Now, what was that you were saying about wondering where all these "negative perceptions" and "Eww, you bought a Ford" remarks come from? Perception is intimately tied to quality issues with Ford. You continue to argue that perception alone is why people don't buy Fords. I am arguing that there is a direct and quantifiable link between quality and perception, and I stated quite accurately in my post that the REASONS for that negative perception (and negative remarks) are experiences like the ones I referenced.

Unfortunately, you're always dodging the real issues by trying to be too clever by half, which is why you keep losing these debates with me.

I'm done with you.

 

I agree with this EXCEPT for the fact that when FORD issues a recall, it's like the sky is FALLING!! Every news station, every newspaper, every car mag editor and on and on make it sound like it's the END OF THE WORLD!

Well, since they do that to Ford, it's only proper that when it happens to Toyota or Nissan or any other company that the car mags feel are soooo superior, it's up to us to point out the fact and RAISE HECK about the fact that EVERY company has recalls, NOT JUST FORD.

BTW, I'm not sure it's a good use of your time to debate with BC. I'm convinced he lives just to counter every single opinion we all have here about our favorite car company. He poses as a Ford fan, but in my opinion someone who posts as he is not a Ford fan. Don't bother wasting your words.

 

Unfortunately for you and Ford Motor Co., your "opinion" doesn't matter much when it comes to the survival (or not) of the Blue Oval. What matters are the opinions of the vast majority of consumers who AREN'T buying Ford products, and who apparently don't hear you crying "foul."

On the other hand, they also don't wear your brand of rose colored glasses.

If I truly "hated" Ford, as you keep erroneously stating, I wouldn't waste my time writing 1477 posts on this site - which I think is slightly ahead of you, Mr. 'Ford Fanatic'.

 

So that's what this is all about for you. You just want to win an argument and declare yourself a "winner".
They did have a plan; however due to the huge bureaucracy within Ford, we did not see the 1st product of this plan until late 2004. In February 2002, nearly FIVE YEARS AGO, at the Chicago auto show Ford announced the "Crosstrainer".

Since it was officially announced at the beginning of 2002, that means that they had probably been working on it most of 2001 and most likely was going through the bureaucratic approval process in 2000. So while the Explorer was still riding high on the sales charts six years ago, they already had a plan for the CUV market. FOUR YEARS before the SUV market started declining massively, they were ALREADY starting work on crossovers.

In the press release about the Crosstrainer from February 2002:

The "Crosstrainer" became the "Freestyle", which would be doing better IF they had put as much effort into marketing as they are doing with the Edge, their second attempt at the CUV market.

Do you realize that when you said that you were almost quoting George W. Bush?
As I said above, they started planning on crossovers five to six years ago, when the Explorer was still riding high; however, bureaucracy added years to these plans coming to fruition.

A different set of executives comes in and scraps the plans of the previous set. Just like the government, another huge bureaucacy. This surprises you?
I say increasing gas prices are ONE OF MANY factors contributing to Ford's problems. Business Week agrees. Poor management decisions from the past, such as buying the moneypit that is Jaguar, are still haunting them today. Bureaucracy is another, poor perception is one of the many as well.
Those articles must have misquoted Mulally or taken his quote out of context.
What the He** is this then?
http://media.ford.com/events/way_for...USINESS%20PLAN

This is a link to Ford's Business Plan dated January 23, 2006


I NEVER SAID THAT PERCEPTION ALONE IS THE PROBLEM. If you would learn to read better and not just filter out things you don't agree with, and stop being so condescending, you might have read where I said this:
and
Then how do you "quantify" this:

Lincoln is 2nd only to Lexus on the dependability study, Mercury is ranked higher than Honda, and Ford is above the industry average right behind Acura, yet people have a poor perception of Ford products? How can you quantify people I know who are recent immigrants to this country who have never even owned a car before coming to the US let alone a Ford, who have the opinion that Fords are not worthy?
I'm not dodging anything. You started this whole topic about Ford's perception.

• I said, "Yeah I know about the perception problem, I'm tired of hearing about it." I said it's one of the factors causing Ford problems. Why not focus on what is working and learn from that?
• Then you starting going on about poor quality products.
• I say Ford has some good products now that people perceive as poor.
• Then you start accusing me of saying it's the ONLY problem causing people not to buy Fords, which I NEVER SAID.
• Then you declare yourself the "winner"..

Afraid you're going to "lose", so you're quitting while you think you're ahead? It's tough being the big man on the playground isn't it?

I've shown my support for Ford by buying one of their best new products this year. What have you done, with you being such big a "Ford fan"?

 

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

 

Good comeback.

 

I'll give him points for brevity (unlike some who have participated in this discussion).

 

Did you really think everyone that works at (insert name of top automaker) likes/knows about cars?

 

Aww, don't be so hard on yourself.

 

I read somewhere that there are really only 2 buyers of Mustangs... ones below the age of 40 who want to get a "cool" car and bring in a car to trade, and those over 40 who want a weekend driver Mustang (no trade-in during purchase).

 

Not a problem. My scant few posts in this topic have been brief. I was referring to the pontificators.

 

This guy seriously has no business working for FMC, he needs to GTFO of detroit and go work for Toyota or some other import company. Morons like him are why Ford has such a bad reputation, if the employees do not have a passion for the product, i really don't think they have any business working for the company.

 

He could get out of Dearborn and go work for Toyota... at ANN ARBOR, MI

But seriously, perhaps he just does not like any of Ford's offerings. That isn't a crime and that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person. Ford's mid-sized FWD sedans do not have the same power output or level of refinement as the imports. The Fusion is a step in the right direction but with an anemic engine it isn't going to win over Accord V6 or Lexus IS350 owners.

 

'Outside of Michigan, the only people who drive Ford cars are illegals and the poor.'


That is just way too funny for words.....



Mods I think we need to start a Forum section just for BC Shelby