What's the BFD with IRS?
11/14/08, 09:16 PM
#681
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
Yeah, let's be fair, indeed.
To your first point: the major component of a stone's throw away from chapter 11 is not lack of an IRS on a Mustang, its the UAW costs and movement away from trucks... I said that the unwillingness to adopt technologies that the rest of the automotive world went to YEARS ago (IRS being but one major example in Ford's case) is part of a series of systemic mistakes that domestic automakers have been making for the past three decades - always taking the cheap route. UAW costs are certainly a problem (as are legacy costs), but movement away from trucks is no excuse whatsoever. The imports - clearly seeing in THEIR crystal ***** - that cheap oil wouldn't last forever, figured out how to make money on passenger cars as opposed to banking everything on trucks. Apparently the domestic automaker's crystal ***** were clouded by greed combined with short-term vision.
To your second point: GM is a stone's throw away, Ford is not. You betcha Ford is a stone's throw away from bankruptcy. Depending upon which reports you read, the company only has one to two years left before the money runs out. I call that a stone's throw. Think the economy is going to turn around within 24 months? Think again. If Ford can't start selling vehicles in much greater numbers in that time (when consumers are severely cutting back on automotive purchases), then they won't survive either, unless they get either a government bailout or merge with another foreign automaker.
To your first point: the major component of a stone's throw away from chapter 11 is not lack of an IRS on a Mustang, its the UAW costs and movement away from trucks... I said that the unwillingness to adopt technologies that the rest of the automotive world went to YEARS ago (IRS being but one major example in Ford's case) is part of a series of systemic mistakes that domestic automakers have been making for the past three decades - always taking the cheap route. UAW costs are certainly a problem (as are legacy costs), but movement away from trucks is no excuse whatsoever. The imports - clearly seeing in THEIR crystal ***** - that cheap oil wouldn't last forever, figured out how to make money on passenger cars as opposed to banking everything on trucks. Apparently the domestic automaker's crystal ***** were clouded by greed combined with short-term vision.
To your second point: GM is a stone's throw away, Ford is not. You betcha Ford is a stone's throw away from bankruptcy. Depending upon which reports you read, the company only has one to two years left before the money runs out. I call that a stone's throw. Think the economy is going to turn around within 24 months? Think again. If Ford can't start selling vehicles in much greater numbers in that time (when consumers are severely cutting back on automotive purchases), then they won't survive either, unless they get either a government bailout or merge with another foreign automaker.
That being said, if the Bushwacker doesn't give his approval. Then Obama will, when he takes office !
11/14/08, 09:23 PM
#682
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
They **** near let Dubai Ports World take over the port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports, including New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami. And that would have been a SERIOUS national security conflict.
Which has no guarantee of being completed or even passing if it does.
Last edited by Hollywood_North GT; 11/14/08 at 09:24 PM.
11/14/08, 10:35 PM
#683
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
What makes you think that?! They had no problem when Daimler took a senior partnership with Chrysler.
They **** near let Dubai Ports World take over the port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports, including New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami. And that would have been a SERIOUS national security conflict.
Which has no guarantee of being completed or even passing if it does.
They **** near let Dubai Ports World take over the port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports, including New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami. And that would have been a SERIOUS national security conflict.
Which has no guarantee of being completed or even passing if it does.
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 11/14/08 at 10:37 PM.
11/15/08, 12:50 AM
#684
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I believe we are seeing the end of the second muscle car era in the works, either way.
11/15/08, 01:39 AM
#685
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2008
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Get them while you can people...
Yep. If you want to buy a new one, you better get on it. If this next muscle car drought is only even half as long the the last 35 year drought, this will be the last gasoline powered muscle car era.
Get them while you can people...
Get them while you can people...
11/15/08, 02:47 AM
#686
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
I've had mine since February of 2005, and have no intentions of giving up my current 05 GT. Although, I was hoping for a 50th anniversary edition in 2014, but if the 2010/11 models end up as the last cars of the second muscle car era. Then it appears, I'll be holding onto my current 05 indefinitely !
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 11/15/08 at 02:49 AM.
11/15/08, 02:57 AM
#687
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
From what I'm reading, if they do get a bailout, it won't be a blank cheque to keep doing what they've been doing - instead it will come with all sorts of strings attached, including a proviso that inefficient vehicles be eliminated in favor of moving towards a green economy.
I believe we are seeing the end of the second muscle car era in the works, either way.
I believe we are seeing the end of the second muscle car era in the works, either way.
I don't know if this may help, but I found this in the General Car Chat Forums, listed under Other Fords http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showthread.php?t=474628
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 11/15/08 at 03:09 AM.
11/15/08, 03:40 AM
#688
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Yep, my '05 Jeep Wrangler still has them, has an SRA in the front and rear, no power locks and my windows unzip, and I shift the gears myself (but it is a 6-speed, go figure). Kind of like it that way, but its not designed to go fast...
11/16/08, 06:10 AM
#689
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
35 year drought? C'mon Camaros and Mustang started getting fast again by the late 80s. An 87 LX 5.0 could take on a big block Mach1.... I think we may have a 5-10 year drop in performance but I think the tech is already there. Ford is already good at getting big power and decent MPGs out of small V8s and now rumors of turbos being put in their engine lineup should also help.
11/16/08, 03:26 PM
#690
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense is dead?
Do you realize how many decades it took the entire automotive industry (not only Ford) to move to front disc brakes as STANDARD on every one of their cars? Everyone understands the disc brakes clear superiority over drum brakes. The cost difference to the car manufactures between disc and drum brakes has historically been a single digit dollar amount. Yet car buyers went many decades and perhaps thousands of lives lost due to disc brakes NOT being a standard feature on all automobiles since the 60's. Do you realize that you can still buy cars with rear drum brakes?
In your wildest dreams the difference between IRS and SRA is nowhere near as important or drastic and has a far smaller direct impact on automotive/passenger safety than disc versus drum brakes do.
The timing of IRS's arrival on the base Mustang (or any Mustang) is simply NOT that pressing of an issue. Just ask Ford.
IRS suspension is NOT the end all do all "Holy Grail" of evolutionary steps in the Mustang, common sense indeed.
Do you realize how many decades it took the entire automotive industry (not only Ford) to move to front disc brakes as STANDARD on every one of their cars? Everyone understands the disc brakes clear superiority over drum brakes. The cost difference to the car manufactures between disc and drum brakes has historically been a single digit dollar amount. Yet car buyers went many decades and perhaps thousands of lives lost due to disc brakes NOT being a standard feature on all automobiles since the 60's. Do you realize that you can still buy cars with rear drum brakes?
In your wildest dreams the difference between IRS and SRA is nowhere near as important or drastic and has a far smaller direct impact on automotive/passenger safety than disc versus drum brakes do.
The timing of IRS's arrival on the base Mustang (or any Mustang) is simply NOT that pressing of an issue. Just ask Ford.
IRS suspension is NOT the end all do all "Holy Grail" of evolutionary steps in the Mustang, common sense indeed.
11/16/08, 03:29 PM
#691
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the Big 3 is in emergency mode. GM is the worst out of the three, but Ford isn't far behind. If the economy doesn't pick up soon and consumers start buying cars/trucks, the domestic auto industry will be much different than it is today. I am pulling for them, but then again my opinion is that we should let poorly run companies fail. We cannot bail out everyone's bad management decisions.
11/16/08, 07:01 PM
#692
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the Big 3 is in emergency mode. GM is the worst out of the three, but Ford isn't far behind. If the economy doesn't pick up soon and consumers start buying cars/trucks, the domestic auto industry will be much different than it is today. I am pulling for them, but then again my opinion is that we should let poorly run companies fail. We cannot bail out everyone's bad management decisions.
11/16/08, 07:20 PM
#694
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Then there is the whole national security component of being a superpower and not having a single domestic vehicular manufacturer left.
I doubt Washington will let that happen.
11/16/08, 07:23 PM
#695
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel I must note that Chrysler is by far in the worst shape. The big difference is that they don't have to show their books to the public like Ford and GM. So, even though Ford is in tough shape they are in the best condition of the big 3. I think both Ford and GM will survive, Chrysler on the other hand will likely be bought out by competition overseas... perhaps one of those emerging Chinese car companies.
11/16/08, 07:32 PM
#696
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ordinarily, I agree with this 100%. But this is not an ordinary circumstance. I think that both the direct and collateral damage that would result by letting them fail would be much, much worse than giving them a hand, particularly given that Ford is already well into its restructuring, and probably would have turned things around within two to three years were it not for this calamitous economic downturn. Therefore, I'd rather see Ford get the money than these bastards who have immediately reverted to their old tricks.
Then there is the whole national security component of being a superpower and not having a single domestic vehicular manufacturer left.
I doubt Washington will let that happen.
Then there is the whole national security component of being a superpower and not having a single domestic vehicular manufacturer left.
I doubt Washington will let that happen.
11/16/08, 07:41 PM
#697
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My opinion is that a bailout would only prolonging the inivitable without huge change in the industry. The first would be HUGE UAW concessions. Before we the taxpayers "bailout" the industry, we need a plan presented on how the Big 3 plan to return to profitablity and pay "our" loans back.
This is also a political hot potato. If Congress let's the Big 2.15487 go over the cliff, there WILL be major political blowback that is likely to cost them votes in the next election cycle.
So, to recap:
Pros of letting them die: Assuaging the anti-bailout crowd; no longer subsidizing an industry in dire need of an enema.
Cons of letting them die: Economic shockwaves throughout economy; political blowback; serious national security implications.
I think it's pretty clear what Congress will ultimately do.
11/16/08, 08:18 PM
#698
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that would be a prudent step, yes...though I'm not sure if there's any time to work out such complex details before giving them some sort of help becomes critical (like right now).
This is also a political hot potato. If Congress let's the Big 2.15487 go over the cliff, there WILL be major political blowback that is likely to cost them votes in the next election cycle.
So, to recap:
Pros of letting them die: Assuaging the anti-bailout crowd; no longer subsidizing an industry in dire need of an enema.
Cons of letting them die: Economic shockwaves throughout economy; political blowback; serious national security implications.
I think it's pretty clear what Congress will ultimately do.
This is also a political hot potato. If Congress let's the Big 2.15487 go over the cliff, there WILL be major political blowback that is likely to cost them votes in the next election cycle.
So, to recap:
Pros of letting them die: Assuaging the anti-bailout crowd; no longer subsidizing an industry in dire need of an enema.
Cons of letting them die: Economic shockwaves throughout economy; political blowback; serious national security implications.
I think it's pretty clear what Congress will ultimately do.
I can care less about the political ramifications. As a taxpayer, I want to make sure my money is being spent carefully in this recession. Right now, the Big 3 & UAW haven't come forth with a strong enough case for me as a taxpayer to bail them out. I know the economic ramifications, but without huge change in the industry this is only prolonging the issue.
There are also arguements supporting backruptcy as an option.
11/16/08, 11:27 PM
#699
THE RED FLASH ------ Master-Moderator
Lee Iaccoca put together a proposal for the loan guarantee in 1979. I haven't seen Mulally or Wagoneer's plan.
I can care less about the political ramifications. As a taxpayer, I want to make sure my money is being spent carefully in this recession. Right now, the Big 3 & UAW haven't come forth with a strong enough case for me as a taxpayer to bail them out. I know the economic ramifications, but without huge change in the industry this is only prolonging the issue.
There are also arguements supporting backruptcy as an option.
I can care less about the political ramifications. As a taxpayer, I want to make sure my money is being spent carefully in this recession. Right now, the Big 3 & UAW haven't come forth with a strong enough case for me as a taxpayer to bail them out. I know the economic ramifications, but without huge change in the industry this is only prolonging the issue.
There are also arguements supporting backruptcy as an option.
Jason, here's Mulally's plan below !
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...811130413/1148
11/16/08, 11:31 PM
#700
Closet American
Join Date: July 17, 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC (Hollywood North)
Posts: 5,848
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
No, you and I couldn't care less. But believe me, it matters to members of Congress who want to get re-elected.
Unlikely. It's being widely reported that in the current economic climate the automakers wouldn't be able to raise the capital to operate within a Chapter 11 framework. It's much more likely they'd have to go straight to Chapter 7.
Unlikely. It's being widely reported that in the current economic climate the automakers wouldn't be able to raise the capital to operate within a Chapter 11 framework. It's much more likely they'd have to go straight to Chapter 7.