backtop


Print 144 comment(s) - last by cherrycoke.. on Jan 30 at 10:04 PM


2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid

2010 Toyota Prius

2010 Toyota Camry Hybrid
Ford wants to call its Fusion Hybrid the most fuel efficient mid-size car, Toyota says no you can't

What is a mid-size car? Many consumers would think mid-size has something to actually do with the size of the car in physical dimensions, which is doesn't. The federal regulations that determine what class a car falls into actually have to do with interior combined passenger and cargo space.

For instance looking at the Toyota Prius, many would assume it to be a compact car. Its combined interior and storage space amounts to 110.6 cubic feet, slightly over the 110 cubic feet threshold that makes the Prius a mid-size car in the government's eyes.

Ford and Toyota are "cordially disagreeing" according to Toyota on the mileage claims that Ford is making for its new Fusion hybrid. Ford wants to market the Fusion hybrid, which has 111.6 cubic feet of combined interior space, as "the most fuel efficient mid-size car" with EPA economy estimates of 41 mpg in city driving and 36 mpg on the highway.

Toyota says that not only is its Prius a mid-size car according to federal regulations, but it gets better mileage than the Fusion with 48 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway. The Fusion certainly looks more like a mid-size car than the Prius at about 800 pounds heavier, 16-inches longer, and 4-inches wider than the Prius according to USA Today.

Toyota spokesman Joe Tetherow said, "We are reviewing Ford's mileage claims for Fusion." The marketing claims are important to Ford as it tries to revamp its image to be more green and thus sale more cars in the face of slowing sales.

Ford says that it is comparing its Fusion hybrid to the Camry in its marketing claims. The Camry gets 33/34 mpg. Ford's Mark Truby says, "We've been pretty clear, probably annoyingly clear, to Toyota that we're comparing Fusion to Camry."

If Ford continues with its marketing efforts based on the current claims, Toyota could file suit or take the matter before the FCC. Truby says, "There's a process to work through. Sometimes there's an asterisk (in ads), clarifying why you think you can say that."

He continues saying, "Fusion (hybrid) is the most fuel-efficient midsize, in the way customers shop for cars. If we do use it in advertising, we'll say most fuel-efficient midsize 'sedan'." The Prius is a hatchback, not a sedan. Such wording would skirt Toyota's complaints.

Toyota issued a statement today saying, "It’s not exactly a squabble. What’s going on here is that we respectfully and cordially disagree on the definition of a midsize car. This is important when we’re discussing the EPA fuel-economy ratings of vehicles like the Camry Hybrid, the Prius and the Ford Fusion."

Toyota says that its 2010 Prius Hybrid has the virtually identical interior dimensions as the Fusion hybrid and is rated for 50 mpg in the city. Toyota goes on to say in the statement, "But look, here’s the deal: There’s a larger piece of business going on here, and it’s one in which we all can rejoice because no matter your brand preference, it points toward a national and societal good. It is that automotive fuel economy is on the rise. Not everywhere, and not as quickly as some might like. Technology, after all, rarely makes quantum leaps. More likely, it takes incremental steps."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another reason
By j1sha on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Another reason
By Noya on 1/28/2009 1:30:56 PM , Rating: 5
And buy sub par vehicles that have crap interiors, horrid resale and pennies pinched in the most ridiculous places to save a few bucks while their leaders are dumb enough to pay the monkeys in the factory as much as people with Masters and PhD's? Go ahead and donate your money to that, you live in the "heartland", right?


RE: Another reason
By Athena on 1/28/2009 1:49:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
That Toyota or other foreign car may be made here, but the profits go overseas.
Oh really? When was the last time a US manufacturer invested in a new plant in the US?

In the 1990s, GM shut down a couple dozen plants and cut out over 75,000 jobs in the US while investing more than $1 billion in plants elsewhere. While that was happening, Toyota invested over $1 billion to build and expand plants in the US. Which activity do you think contributed more to the overall economic health of the US?

Anyone who thinks "buy an American brand" equates to raising (or even maintaining) the American standard of living is severely misguided. While the importers have used profits from US operations to fund research centers and new plants in the US, the "big 3" have used their profits elsewhere. For over a decade, the primary beneficiaries of sales of Detroit vehicles were executives and major stockholders. They took the US customer for granted and didn't give a damn about the US. Now they want the US government to help finance their self-enriching goals, to the detriment of the society and economy at large.


RE: Another reason
By acase on 1/28/2009 2:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the 1990s, GM shut down a couple dozen plants and cut out over 75,000 jobs in the US while investing more than $1 billion in plants elsewhere. While that was happening, Toyota invested over $1 billion to build and expand plants in the US. Which activity do you think contributed more to the overall economic health of the US?


Wait, we have economic health?

Just kidding, totally agree with your points, well said.


RE: Another reason
By Ringold on 1/28/2009 3:48:16 PM , Rating: 5
Caterpillar's CEO made much the same argument on CNBC yesterday. He said protectionist measures in the stimulus bill currently being debated such as the buy-American requirement on iron and steel would just green-light retaliatory trade policies by foreign governments. He said he wanted CAT to be able to partake in, say, China's infrastructure build-out, and pointed out that exports do make up a good chunk of our GDP. When we engage in trade discrimination, we also completely give up any high moral ground when others return the favor. Perhaps people don't realize how many of our largest companies are themselves massive multinational firms and would be devastated if the whole world adopted such backwards policy. Even in the poorest parts of Africa, you can probably find a genuine Coke for sale if you look hard enough, for example.

The fierce opposition to international trade is just an education issue, a sad and dangerous one at that.


RE: Another reason
By Swamp on 1/28/2009 10:39:36 PM , Rating: 1
I had some old guy tell me I should buy american cars. Im like I do. He was like no, its a honda, I laughed at him. My car was made in Ohio. Last time i checked that was U.S. His Buick he was driving was made in Mexico.


RE: Another reason
By Alexvrb on 1/29/2009 1:13:34 AM , Rating: 3
Assembled in Ohio. Where the car is assembled is not the only issue. Japanese cars assembled here typically use more parts sourced from other countries, so their domestic content is lower. Even US cars assembled in Mexico and Canada for sale here probably have a higher domestic content than a lot of US-assembled imports. They are also designed in Japan - no engineering careers over here. Further, the Japanese manufacturers employ a much smaller number of American workers both directly and indirectly. There's also the issue of where the profits end up with a foreign firm.

That's not to say that it is a bad thing to have a Honda or Toyota that was built here instead of being assembled in Japan. But your car isn't entirely as American as the little sticker implies. So make sure you do your part to help reduce your smug emissions.


RE: Another reason
By Suntan on 1/29/2009 9:46:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are also designed in Japan - no engineering careers over here.


Odd, my buddy must have been lying to me about the years he worked in Ohio as an engineer for Honda.

Anyway, get over it. *All* car companies do business of many forms in many, many countries.

-Suntan


RE: Another reason
By Athena on 1/29/2009 12:53:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Japanese cars assembled here typically use more parts sourced from other countries, so their domestic content is lower. Even US cars assembled in Mexico and Canada for sale here probably have a higher domestic content than a lot of US-assembled imports.
That's an '80s' argument. As the US content of transplant vehicles has risen, "domestic" brands have increased non-US content -- especially in the NAFTA factories.
quote:
They are also designed in Japan - no engineering careers over here.
??? What then, is going on in the Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai design centers in this country?

This constant blaming imports for the ills of Detroit denies the reality that the executives of the US manufacturers are responsible for their own problems.


RE: Another reason
By eldakka on 1/29/2009 2:28:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That Toyota or other foreign car may be made here, but the profits go overseas.


Except for those profits paid in dividends to US shareholders of Toyota.


LOL
By therealnickdanger on 1/28/2009 12:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
If arguing over the Internet makes you a retard, what does arguing over marketing make you?




RE: LOL
By Bateluer on 1/28/2009 12:09:34 PM , Rating: 5
A lawyer.


RE: LOL
By wired00 on 1/28/2009 9:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
haha nice


RE: LOL
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 12:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
...yes, and how about arguing over the Internet about marketing...?

Let's see the comments that follow on this article. :o)


RE: LOL
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 12:24:34 PM , Rating: 5
makes you a Wikipedian.


RE: LOL
By quiksilvr on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
Standards
By superunknown98 on 1/28/2009 12:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wow this is great news! This means I could build a 35 foot long El Camino and classify it as a midsized car because it's interior volume would only be 111 cubic inches or whatever! Brilliant!

Why not just classify a vechicle by overall length? Why should the government care how much interior volume a car has? Shouldn't the consumer be deciding if interior space is important?




RE: Standards
By Amiga500 on 1/28/2009 12:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just classify a vechicle by overall length?

A Merc SLR is quite a long car... but how much room does it have inside?


RE: Standards
By superunknown98 on 1/28/2009 2:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
True, but thats my whole point. The Mclaren is 183.3 inches long, and a camery is 189 inches long. Don't you think they ought to be midsized cars? Otherwise you can claim the Mclaren is a compact car, which it just isn't.

Is a flatbed towtruck a small truck because it has less interior space? No it's still Physically a large vehicle. This is nonsense.


RE: Standards
By Parhel on 1/28/2009 3:36:58 PM , Rating: 5
I believe a McLaren would be classified as a two-seater.

For the purposes of most consumers, I think the interior room definition makes the most sense, personally.


RE: Standards
By cherrycoke on 1/30/2009 10:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
depends on the McLaren,

indeed the SLR is a 2 seater, interior volume (cu ft): 48.0

the McLaren F1 is a 3 seater

http://hybridreview.blogspot.com/2006/09/classific...


RE: Standards
By Totally on 1/29/2009 2:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
they shouldn't have lumped cargo with passenger room in the classification because that's how the prius is being upgraded because it is a hatch. If ford was spiteful enough they'd made a hatch version of the fusion, enough to throw it into the full-size arena and blow that horn all day long.


It makes you wonder...
By Spivonious on 1/28/2009 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 1
If Ford built a hybrid from the ground up, it would surely surpass the Prius in mileage. The 2010 Fusion looks no different from an aerodynamic standpoint than the 2009 Fusion. The Prius looks like a dart and only manages a couple of mpg more.




RE: It makes you wonder...
By cblais19 on 1/28/2009 12:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
This is probably why Toyota is taking issue-Ford is basically saying that even though Toyota is perceived as the industry leader, their standard sedan offering falls short of Ford's new entry.


RE: It makes you wonder...
By walk2k on 1/28/2009 1:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
A couple more? It's rated 7 more in the city and 9 more highway. (48/45) Most Pruis drivers I know get closer to 50 mpg. They would probably take it in to the dealer for repair since something is obviously wrong if they were only getting 41 mpg.


RE: It makes you wonder...
By cblais19 on 1/28/2009 2:15:03 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps real world numbers for the Fusion are also higher? Plus, compare it to the Camry hybrid, both are more stock designs and the Fusion wins out there.


RE: It makes you wonder...
By encia on 1/30/2009 3:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
EPAs’ MPG numbers are from standardized test. You don’t compare different game settings when testing GPUs.


But there is no trunk
By DFranch on 1/28/2009 12:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming that the trunk in the fusion is not considered interior space. If that is the case, then the prius is only a midsize car because it sacrificed a trunk. The Fusion is obviously the larger car and the mileage numbers are admirable.




RE: But there is no trunk
By ChronoReverse on 1/28/2009 12:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
It does say that it includes "storage space" which I presume is the trunk space.


The Prius is a mid-size
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2009 2:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
In Japan. My Cobalt rivaled it in size. And I doubt anyone would say a Cobalt is a mid-size.




do you guys read?
By block2 on 1/30/2009 12:58:51 PM , Rating: 1
Obviously the ugy below educates himself instead of parroting the ignorant mainstream media like most of you.

As he said, look up the facts. Toyota employs only 1000 engineers in the US, yet they sell more vehicles here than Ford. WHAT A DISASTER! The big 3 have 24,000 engineers (used to have many more, but because we buy so many Toyotas, of course the big 3 had to layoff workers and close plants - duh!).

Also, lots of people work accounting and management jobs in the Chrysler building (same applies to GM and Ford). Where is the Japanese equivelent? That's right, it is in Japan.
How many Americans do you think in their corporate headquarters in Japan and mid level offices? (none obviously for you slower readers)

There was research recently that estimated how much wealth stays in the US for foriegn cars that are ASSEMBLED here versus the big 3 cars, which are DESIGNED and MANUFACTURED here, not just assembled here, creating (stealing from the big 3 actually) a few mindless jobs. Needless to say, when the cars are engineered here, and the management (and acocuntants, marketing; etc) at all levels are in the USA, gees, guess what, more money stays here by FAR.

And guess who owns stock in Toyota? That's right, Japanese, not many Americans. When somebody says "where the PROFITS go", they are referring to WHO OWNS the company...and upper management. The assemlers are making a wage, they are not getting the profits. Shareholders get the profits.




Ford Spewing Fud.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By HinderedHindsight on 1/28/2009 12:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
Was this an actual "Ford" commercial, or a Ford dealership making the claim? Keep in mind, dealerships can (and usually tend to) have divergent marketing mechanisms from the manufacturer.

All the same- Mercury's dependability in 2008 surpassed Toyota's in 2008 according to JD Power, but this is still a far cry from claiming "Ford" as a whole, or even the brand, as the Ford brand includes many models of which Mercury doesn't have equivalents for(especially newer ones such as Edge or Flex); so yeah, this isn't really a valid claim.

I do, however, remember reading that Toyota had more recalls in 2007 than Ford- I wish I could find that source again so I cold substantiate it.

Regardless, however you look at it, Ford has made great strides in the reliability department in the last several years, which I think does deserve some marketing attention- just not to the degree of "we have Toyota beat".


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spivonious on 1/28/2009 12:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
But if you consider that Mercurys are just Fords with better interiors and more options, the dependability claim stands.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By cblais19 on 1/28/2009 12:51:53 PM , Rating: 1
Per J.D Power's 2008 initial quality ranking:

#5 Toyota, 104 problems/100 vehicles.
#6 Mercury 109/100
#7 Honda 110/100
#8 Ford 112/100

Pretty darn close, especially to Honda which is widely perceived as a quality leader.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 3
That's just initial quality. Look at the dependability rankings.

http://tinyurl.com/7wzkya

1. Lexus
2. Mercury
3. Cadillac
4. Toyota
5. Acura
6. Buick
7. BMW
8. Lincoln
9. Honda
10. Jaguar


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By MrBlastman on 1/28/2009 1:49:11 PM , Rating: 2
JD Power has always been a pile of poo when it comes to ratings. It has always been very obvious they receive kickbacks and other incentives by companies to rate their products higher than the competition... I mean, just in your list of "dependability rankings:"

Anyone I know who has a Mercedes has it in the shop constantly. BMW's too. Cadillac - come on! Not a single Cadillac my family has owned over the last 25 years has been without its share of problems.

Acura - agreeable, it should be there. Lexus - yes. Lincoln - suprisingly the one my mom owns has held up real well, honda - that is okay too.

But the king - the KING of ludicrousness, is Jaguar. That is a complete joke. Jaguar's are made to fall apart from the factory line.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 2:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the link I posted? This is exactly what mentioned in another post. Some of the buffoons here would rather just simply believe in BS then accept facts. I'm not going to help you at all. Figure it out.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By MrBlastman on 1/28/2009 2:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
404 ERROR - The page you requested was not found.
In an effort to keep our site as current as possible, the page you have selected may have been moved.

If you believe you have reached this page in error, please contact us.

:( :(

It doesn't work. I figured you might have posted that in jest but wasn't sure.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Dreifort on 1/28/2009 3:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
any link associated with tinyurl.com is usually associated with a virus or spyware type trojan.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 3:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
I use tinyurl all of the time. But since there's hesitation in using it here, I'll post the entire url from now on.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 4:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
DT automatically shortens links anyway, so there's little benefit to using tinyurl.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 3:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
Try this link. There's other ways to get to it. Let me know if this works.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pre...


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Parhel on 1/28/2009 3:29:03 PM , Rating: 3
On that list, Hyundai outranks Ford, GMC, Chevrolet, Pontiac, Dodge, etc. in overall dependability.

I'm not saying anything against Hyundai, but I just don't trust J.D. Power.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 5:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hyundai quality has vastly improved. It's up to you what you trust but I'll trust scientific data over a belief any day.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Parhel on 1/28/2009 5:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
JD Power's data is based exclusively on customer surveys. Their data has it's place, but they are far from the final word on quality. I put a lot more stock in a long term road test review from Edmunds or Car & Driver.

I really wasn't knocking Hyundai. My wife has a Tucson, and it's remarkably solid. I still find it suspect that they would beat nearly every American car manufacturer in overall dependability.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 7:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I put a lot more stock in a long term road test review from Edmunds or Car & Driver.
Funny. I don't put hardly ANY stock in either of those two and I'm a C&D subscriber. C&D's heavy BMW bias automatically makes them suspect. I mean two tests where they compare the new M3 with a 911 Turbo and Carrera and the M3 wins both times. Also, look at ANY comparison between a BMW 3 series and anything else. The 3 series ALWAYS wins. I don't even read them anymore, I already know the winner. LOL! And Edmunds pretty much goes along with what all of the other print mags say. No balls.

At least JD uses science to come to their conclusions. I would put MUCH more stock in their results.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By cblais19 on 1/28/2009 12:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
This may be true, but whatever study that Ford was referring to had them ranked now as higher in quality. This would specify current model year. Sure, it's marketing, which is why a consumer should always go investigate a variety of reviews.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By rudolphna on 1/28/2009 8:23:41 PM , Rating: 1
the modules in question were not built by ford. They were made by texas Instruments. Just like Ford Transmissions and transfer cases are not built by ford. They are made primarily by Borg Warner.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By alphadog on 1/30/2009 8:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
That's lame. The captain sinks with the ship.

Ford is not complicit in buying bad parts?


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By bldckstark on 1/28/2009 5:23:49 PM , Rating: 4
Keep in mind that the American OEM's are targeting and winning some fame for the vaunted 90 day customer satisfaction rating of quality. The 1 year, 3 year, and 5 year quality ratings on the American vehicles is pretty low. Buick was number one in "quality" in 2006 (for the 90 day rating). Mercedes was last on the 3 year rating a couple of years back. The JD Powers report is several hundred pages thick, and costs many thousands of dollars to buy the whole report. They sell a cheaper packet to the press, which includes the holy grail of automotive manufacturing - the "Delivery Quality" rating, which is the 90 day measurement listed above.

Toyota did have more recalls, which were due mostly due to the addition of the new Tundra assembly line. The Toyota pickup trucks are designed by Hino, which is the Toyota truck group, and their designs are not up to the same standards as the car group.

I have seen in the last month a Japanese maker spend a buttload to fix a small visual defect in the cargo area of a vehicle, and an American OEM put a piece of double sided tape under a glaring fault in the passenger compartment to fix it until after delivery.

The Japanese production system says "fix the problem". The American production system says "how can we fool the customer into thinking there is no problem?"


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 7:12:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Keep in mind that the American OEM's are targeting and winning some fame for the vaunted 90 day customer satisfaction rating of quality.
Does anyone read anymore? Dude, I already posted a link to the long term study for 2008. I even listed the top 10 in that study. GO READ IT!


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Amiga500 on 1/28/2009 12:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
Modern Fords, at least in the UK, have excellent reliability records.

Ford Europe have been designing and building excellent cars for some time now... must be due to the fact they are German machines. ;-)

Not sure how that compares to Ford US though.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By oab on 1/28/2009 1:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ford Europe and Ford USA had different R&D divisions. Last year in March (or so) they announced a plan to offer a unified set of automobiles worldwide (the European Focus was onto it's 2nd gen platform, while US Focus still had the first-gen one). This is part of the reason that the Fiesta is coming to North America again.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 12:49:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
One TV commercial actually claims "Ford is now rated higher in reliability than Toyota." Ha ! Please. Ford ??
Get a clue; this is not 1985. Ford, GM, and Chrysler all have world quality. Their qualtiy statistics are on par with Honda and Toyota and have been for a while.

I personally don't care much for domestic-brand cars, but to say their quality is lacking is incorrect.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Screwballl on 1/28/2009 12:49:27 PM , Rating: 4
You are partially correct. It is actually GM/Chevrolet that has more quality and dependability awards than Toyota in the midsize class, not Ford.
Check out JDPower awards:

Midsize cars: Chevy Malibu received the award and was ranked first, Ford Fusion ranked second and Mitsubishi Galant rated 3rd. the Toyota Camry is tied with the VW Passat for 4th.

Compact cars: Honda Civic received the award, Toyota Corolla and Matrix, and the GM cars (Cobalt, G5, Vibe) were in the upper to middle of the pack, and the Prius seemed to take second or third, depending on the category.

How about top 10 overall based on dependability (shown with best at the top):

Lexus
Mercury
Cadillac
Toyota
Acura
Buick
BMW
Lincoln
Honda
Jaguar

Thats 4 for Ford (Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, Jaguar), 2 for Honda (Honda, Acura), 2 for Toyota (Toyota, Lexus), 2 for GM (Cadillac, Buick).


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By cblais19 on 1/28/2009 1:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hm, 08 initial quality shows you have to go to 6th place to find a domestic brand. Honda receives the most rewards, Asian makers as a whole garnering 9/18, domestic 7, Euro 2. I'm failing to see the domestic shill here?


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 1:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
Initial quality isn't the only test from JD Power. There are longer term tests. I cited those above. And quite frankly, I would rather look at those.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By HinderedHindsight on 1/28/2009 1:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have another source which is substantially more reliable than JD Power? And I have not seen evidence that there is much (if any) bias from JD Power. Can you point it out to me, because I am genuinely curious?


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 1:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Nah bud. It just sounded pretty damn good when I wrote it.

Lol what did you expect ? Sometimes I eat the bar, and sometimes.. well, you know the rest.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Noya on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By cblais19 on 1/28/2009 2:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
I will agree with you that Honda has much higher fit and finish on average then American companies.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 4:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, what do you base that on? Again, as I said in another post, this is not 1985.

The better fit-and-finish exists in your mind, mainly.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By The0ne on 1/28/2009 1:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
While JDPower might be correct in their rankings of vehicles, when a Manufacturing Engineer such as me think about Quality we tend to think about the over-all system of the company. Once piece part isn't going to say anything much, kinda like having thousands of "Quality Awards" on your wall doesn't.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 1:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about "the over-all system of the company" if the cars rolling out of the gates are good? As a consumer (that's you), that's all that matters. Since no one here has any evidence to the contrary other than anecdotal, and the auto manufacturing industry acknowledges JD Power & Assoc as an industry standard organization for ranking quality in cars, what comes from them is gold. What comes from DT'ers is sh!t.

Of course, you can ignore their rankings and buy what you like (even SUV's) but to minimize their scientific findings because of some misguided belief is just plain ignorant.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By The0ne on 1/28/2009 2:33:23 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry you don't understand. Maybe check up Manufacturing Engineer and see what we do for our life and you'll get a clue as to how "valid" these 3rd party tests are. And again, I'm not discrediting JDPower I'm saying be careful of what you're getting your info from and solely relying on it.

The over-all system, in terms of Quality, does matter. You're thinking is the MAIN reason why most US companies cannot adopt the Toyota or other Quality programs. The UAW is the MAIN reason why a complete TPS, Six Sigma, JIT, etc cannot be implemented to it's fullest. Do you think Toyota got to where it was simply by it's cars or the reviews of JDPower and the likes? You might have to really do some research and take some seminars to better educate yourself before making responses like you just did. Short answer is NO. Toyota changed their entire system from top management to supplies to office materials to get where they are. If you don't understand this in the first place please don't reply back until you do.

But then again, hey if you like awards and think they are the truth of all matter then so be it. All I can tell you, fist hand being in the business, is that all those awards means little to nothing. That's because when we audit most of them wouldn't even be better than your higher profiled Chinese factory; and that's not saying much.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 4:54:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You're thinking is the MAIN reason why most US companies cannot adopt the Toyota or other Quality programs.
Wow, for an engineer you sure make a LOT of assumptions. LOL! My thinking has jack to do with how an automaker runs their business. If it did, I would be sitting on the beach in Malibu right now. Never did I say I base my auto purchase decisions on who's got what award. Quite frankly, I don't use them at all. Why? Sometimes you'll get a lemon, sometimes you don't no matter whose nameplate is on the car. Thankfully, I've never purchased a lemon. All of my cars were excellent and any problems I had were solved by the dealership or my by doing my own repairs.

I don't care about TQM, Six Smegma, JIT, Delta Papa Doo Doo or any of that other stuff. You assume (again) that I not familiar with something because I decide to trash it in a post. Again, this is coming from a supposed engineer. LOL! All I need is car that meets my needs and desires and isn't going to be in the shop every other week is the only thing that matters. JD Power would assist in giving me a very good idea about the quality of a car and I'll probably be using that useful tool in future purchases.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By The0ne on 1/28/2009 7:30:19 PM , Rating: 3
Your very statement "'Who cares about "the over-all system of the company";" is the same mentality that most companies have that is DIRECTLY affecting how these quality initiatives should be carry out. It CLEARLY shows how inexperience you in the field of Quality when you make such statements. If you even bother to read what some of these quality programs have to offer you understand that for the majority of the benefits to happen it needs not only to happen in the production of the parts/product but also the entire company. For the latter case it's a cultural changed, which I have also implemented. Have you? And for the record what I'm stating aren't assumptions. Please go Google and educate yourself.

As for your remaining comments I agree. Don't rely on JDPower but not solely as the resource. I don't go out and base my vehicle purchase on just one review, that would be a mistake. That's really what I'm saying. JDPower has their tests and charts but rarely will you ever see them use in Quality seminars. The reason being they really don't have all the data, as Manufacturing Engineers in the field would, to complete their tests and charts.

If you don't care about the Quality programs then please don't provide your needless inputs. Why bother? Don't be a Guzz666 when all you can say is that "I don't care about anyone and anything" and yet still have your word on every single issue. When you refer to quality, in which I have in my quotation of recent commercials, I meant quality. JDPower has a stat, not quality. When I see "surpasses both Toyota and Honda in Quality." then I laugh because for one it's a broad statement and second it's false. UAW will never allow the systems to fully work. That one statement does not mean the car in the commercial is of quality build, it means they as a company have surpassed Toyota and Honda.

And yet you insist on making fun of one of my profession when you clearly lack the concept to even decent discussion with. Bravo.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By The0ne on 1/28/2009 1:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more. Those whom are in the business or the know will just as quick to turn their heads the other way when the big3 makes huge claims for fuel efficiency, better working environments and my favorite as of late "Quality the surpasses Toyota and Honda." *roll eyes*


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 1:52:35 PM , Rating: 3
Roll your eyes all you want. Ford quality has been scientifically proven, Mr. Engineer, to be of comparable quality to Honda and Toyota. The proof is right here in this thread.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By The0ne on 1/28/2009 2:39:11 PM , Rating: 1
The specific car(s) is on the list not the Quality itself. Sigh. I'm not against all the big3 cars for poor workmanship. The Malibu is a nice car, I've yet to inspect one myself and have been tempted because of the reviews but haven't found the time. And I'm not for Japanese automakers since I just bought and am not too happy about the build quality of my EVO X. But a rally fan is a rally fan.

The key word here is QUALITY!


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 5:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The key word here is QUALITY!
Then you're using your own definition of quality. I'm using the industry standard as defined by JD Power, in this case, and accepted by all of the automakers. I'm done. Believe what you wish, Mr So-Called Engineer.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By The0ne on 1/28/2009 7:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO :)


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By The0ne on 1/28/2009 7:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
Since you're so freaking lazy, let me help you understand what Quality truly means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_engineerin...

JDPower.com ("Using consumer satisfaction data collected, this site provides consumers information to help them in their buying decisions."

If after this you can't distinguish between actual Quality and what JDPower has, then please leave me the f*ck alone. My time is not worth it speaking with you.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 4:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those whom are in the business or the know will just as quick to turn their heads the other way when the big3 makes huge claims for fuel efficiency, better working environments and my favorite as of late "Quality the surpasses Toyota and Honda."
No, those in the industry - such as myself - who follow the industry closely already know that Ford's claims are correct even before seeing the commercials.

I've personally been seeing quality statistics on various automakers for 20 years, and I can tell you that the American-brand cars are all in the same quality range as their foreign counterparts.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 4:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
TheOne speaks as if he's in the industry.

Tom, you speak like a dealership salesman.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 4:50:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
TheOne speaks as if he's in the industry. Tom, you speak like a dealership salesman.
I assume you reached that conclusion because he/she agrees with your own viewpoints? Nice logic there.


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 5:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
That and he's actually stated his exact profession and job title.

You, on the other hand, choose to be ambiguous with your "in the industry" cryptic comment. Which could range from a salesman, to a manager, to an engineer.

Or perhaps it's because you work for a domestic company and don't want us to see just how biased you are ?


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 5:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assume you reached that conclusion because he/she agrees with your own viewpoints?
That cracks me up the most. As long as I say and believe it's true, then it must be, in spite of the facts. LOL!

PS - LOL!


RE: Ford Spewing Fud.
By wired00 on 1/28/2009 9:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
hahaha wow.


Meh
By Suntan on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Bateluer on 1/28/2009 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 5
I thought Ford didn't take any tax payer money. Didn't they just ask for a line of credit that they may not need? Chrysler and GM are the ones took billions.


RE: Meh
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 12:46:20 PM , Rating: 5
You're right - Ford didn't get any bailout money - and anyway, the OP is wrong again because no car companies "took" any money - they were loans.


RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2009 12:58:23 PM , Rating: 1
Tom, please.

"loans" that can't be paid back aren't loans.


RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Titanius on 1/28/2009 1:56:11 PM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you...


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By teldar on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Smilin on 1/29/2009 1:22:50 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody who rated you down can "face you" with a response of their own, or the rating-down won't apply.

The forum doesn't allow both responses and ratings.

Besides nobody comes and takes away christmas if you get a -1. ..So settle down, dumb@ss.


RE: Meh
By Noya on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Screwballl on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 2:15:32 PM , Rating: 1
I understand where you're coming from but this is all anecdotal. If you can cite some evidence to support your assertions, then you'd be on to something.


RE: Meh
By Samus on 1/28/2009 3:19:04 PM , Rating: 1
I think he meant they haven't had any real competition in 30 years on the domestic market. Which is true. Other than Volkswagon and the occasional Merc, Beamers and Volvo's, there weren't many imported vehicles until the OPEC embargo in the 70's.


RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Ratinator on 1/29/2009 10:22:28 AM , Rating: 1
The solid reputation you refer to was based on one being deemed a sinner if they bought anything other than domestic.


RE: Meh
By Alexstarfire on 1/29/2009 9:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
I could like wise tell you that my dad sold his 1992, I think that's the right year, Toyota Previa that only had ONE problem with it.... a broken air conditioner. Somehow the thing cracked and leaked the refrigerant out... and it was a pain to replace since it used Freon. Other than that no problems what so ever.


RE: Meh
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 2:13:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can't believe the domestic support on this blog
I can't believe the refusal to accept truth and evidence of fact on DT over blind emotion. Whether or not the loans given out will be paid back remains to be seen. Either way, it's still a loan. If your "bailout" is paid back, will you then call it a loan? If I use your logic, then most homeowners have received bailouts too. Well, until they pay off their homes, then they'll be considered mortgages. LOL!


RE: Meh
By cblais19 on 1/28/2009 2:18:36 PM , Rating: 3
I think like many things it's hard to change established perception. I know my first reaction when I heard that Ford/GM were catching up was "That's a load of BS." Reading a variety of factual reviews helped set me straight.


RE: Meh
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 3:12:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think like many things it's hard to change established perception.
You're right. I should probably tone it down a bit. I didn't learn about the quality change myself until after I bought my first American car (an 07). But I just wasn't as rigid as some of the people here. Things change. That's just the way of the world.


RE: Meh
By Ringold on 1/28/2009 3:36:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Either way, it's still a loan. If your "bailout" is paid back, will you then call it a loan?


When history is written many years down the road that looks back at this period, it'll most likely still be called a bailout. For some reason it's hard for people to accept, but the "Big Three", particularly Chrysler, are in deep trouble; Ford, admittedly, is probably in the best shape of the three. At any rate, I believe virtually any economist, banker, and hopefully historian would assert plainly that a company who receives assistance from the government that the private market would never provide is receiving a bailout versus what would have taken place otherwise. Ford may have been able to get private funding if financial markets were a little better off (or perhaps not), but GM and Chrysler are so rotten that I think the only money they would have got would have been, perhaps, debtor in possession financing after being forced in to bankruptcy.

Asides from bailout, it could also for the same reason be called a subsidy.

If you all want to argue merits of a bailout, thats fine. But for gods sake, be honest with what these things are. They're bailouts. Good bailouts or bad bailouts? You decide. But they're bailouts.


RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 4:40:07 PM , Rating: 5
Ringold is right - but it is still a loan. Yes, the terms are more favorable than they could ever get from the private sector. But the agreement is still that it is money loaned that must be paid back with interest. That is the definition of "loan."

Note that this is unlike the much larger "bailout" of the banking sector, which is money that the banks and insurance companies don't have to pay back. In that industry, they are free to treat their bailout as "mad money" and spend it on whatever they want...acquisitions, office remodels, executive bonuses...

In contrast, the automakers, with their relatively tiny loans, have to be darn sure they are putting the money to good use so they can pass oversight requirements, as well as being able to pay it back at some point in the future.

Let's agree to use two different words for two entirely different situations.


RE: Meh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By TomZ on 1/28/2009 4:49:25 PM , Rating: 5
Google is your friend:

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/0116...

There are all the details for the "Secured Term Loan" as the Treasury calls it for Chrysler. I leave it as an exercise to you to find the equivalent document for the GM loan(s).


RE: Meh
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2009 7:59:17 AM , Rating: 4
I'm a huge GM fan and even I agree with you. I wanted them to file for bankruptcy and truly fix the problem. Get rid of the UAW.


RE: Meh
By HinderedHindsight on 1/28/2009 12:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is absolutely correct- Ford has not actually taken any money or even a line of credit- even though their sales have declined, they are nowhere near the same danger that GM and Chrysler are.

And they mainly asked for credit in case Chrysler or GM failed- that's a big qualification; the idea (supposedly, but it is hard to verify) is they would only need it as suppliers would have been affected by failures of GM or Chrysler; they would need the extra funds to ensure survival if the supplier network failed as result of GM or Chrysler's failure.


RE: Meh
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 12:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
From what I understand, Ford would need the line of credit in case Chrysler or GM fails and an ensuing fire sale of either makers vehicles would make Ford uncompetitive during that process.


RE: Meh
By HinderedHindsight on 1/28/2009 1:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
That could be it as well- I read several different claims for why it might be needed at the time they were all flying to Washington to ask for money. The reason I mentioned was the one I happened to see cited most often.


RE: Meh
By rudy on 1/28/2009 1:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
Also if GM or Crystler go down they will probably file chapter 11 and come out debt free and in strong standing a luxury ford will not have. Ford will be stiffed with the whole bill of holding up the UAW and competing with new debt free competitors. That would be a very tough market to be in.


RE: Meh
By Athena on 1/28/2009 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ford will be stiffed with the whole bill of holding up the UAW and competing with new debt free competitors.
Get a grip...Ford isn't "stuck" with anything beyond what its management team agreed to. Management made bad deals all around and will have to live them...that's called business. The UAW is not responsible for business plans that involved over-production, which in turn called for sales incentives that drained most of the profit from vehicles. Every contract requires two signatures; if management at any one of the automakers hadn't been so arrogant and taken the US buyer for granted, there would have been no agreements.


RE: Meh
By ebakke on 1/29/2009 4:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if management at any one of the automakers hadn't been so arrogant and taken the US buyer for granted, there would have been no agreements.
Or if they thought they could've actually been able to produce vehicles after giving the UAW the finger.

You can claim it was a fair negotiation, but threat of literally zero line workers carries a lot of weight.


RE: Meh
By Athena on 1/29/2009 5:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can claim it was a fair negotiation, but threat of literally zero line workers carries a lot of weight.
1. It was the manufacturers that, through a long history of abusive practices, set things up as an adversarial relationship and they are now living with the consequences. The reason the transplants don't have unions is because they have a different relationship with management; anyone who tours these factories quickly picks up on the difference in the enviroments.

2. I don't understand why this myth of "it's the UAW's fault" has so much traction. Why do we not see any discussion about the degree to which the dealer organizations, with the support of state legislatures, have strangled Detroit.

3. Management is responsible for all the decisions. They have consistently taken the easy way out and sought to blame their problems on everything but their own poor decisions.


RE: Meh
By ebakke on 1/30/2009 5:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
I completely agree that the Big 3 are in a predicament that ultimately resulted from decisions they made. But to say simply that it was the management's fault for not making better decisions trivializes a very complex issue, and simultaneously removes blame from others who deserve it (including the government, and the UAW).


RE: Meh
By rudy on 1/30/2009 12:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously you don't know much about how it works. Life is never that easy. In MI if the union goes on strike all other unions support it. When groups like UPS and Fedex are unionized that means you get no packages or shipments. It carries over to everything and you are really shut down.

So what the Auto makers do is wait for bad times like this when the threat of no jobs at all and complete economic meltdown pushes the power over to the Auto makers side. Then the union knows it cannot strike.


RE: Meh
By Spivonious on 1/28/2009 12:45:29 PM , Rating: 3
How about "Ford didn't take any of the bailout money. It all went to GM and Chrysler."


RE: Meh
By teldar on 1/28/2009 5:30:56 PM , Rating: 4
There you go being all factually correct. You ought to know that facts just don't matter to some people.


RE: Meh
By Dreifort on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Suntan on 1/28/2009 1:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm... I thought most of the people smart enough to register for access to a web forum were smart enough to put two and two together, but in any case...

The point was that the Prius looks like an egg and everytime I see one going down the road I think to myself, "Douchebag."

-Suntan


RE: Meh
By Dreifort on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Suntan on 1/28/2009 4:46:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
ppl don't appreciate my sarcasim.


There, fixed that post for you.

I cleaned off all the silly extra words that didn’t belong.

-Suntan


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Suntan on 1/28/2009 4:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t think people in a Prius are Douchebags because I think they make more than me. I think they are Douchbags because every acquaintance I know that has a Prius is a complete Douchebag.

And just in case you are wondering why I think the Prius looks like an egg, it’s because the Prius *looks* like an egg.

-Suntan


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By jlips6 on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Meh
By Parhel on 1/28/2009 5:41:27 PM , Rating: 1
Don't feed the trolls.


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 6:58:50 PM , Rating: 1
I think it was you that was being referred to as a troll.


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Meh
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 12:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why not?


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/29/2009 1:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Dreifort, you are a troll. Why not?


RE: Meh
By Dreifort on 1/29/2009 3:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
seeing as you replied to one of the threads I started, how am I the troll?


RE: Meh
By Pirks on 1/29/2009 3:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
This thread is not started by you, it's started by Suntan, hence you're a troll. Why not?


RE: Meh
By austinag on 1/28/2009 1:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
They could just say midsized sedan, instead of car.


RE: Meh
By walk2k on 1/28/2009 1:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
That's what they are doing.

Anyway, the Fusion looks okay when you compare it to the Accord or Camry hybrid....

BUT...

You're telling me the Fusion has 1 cu.ft. more interior space and it gets almost 10mpg less than the Prius?

Ooops Ford.

Ooops.


RE: Meh
By Spuke on 1/28/2009 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're telling me the Fusion has 1 cu.ft. more interior space and it gets almost 10mpg less than the Prius?
Are you new here? Look up the words, coefficient of drag and frontal area.


RE: Meh
By TheSpaniard on 1/28/2009 2:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
Im sorry did you say: hatchback vs sedan???

that certainly helps these figures make the Prius look better than the Fusion


RE: Meh
By artemicion on 1/28/2009 4:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'd suspect that the main reason that the Fusion has nearly equal interior space but less fuel mileage is because the trunk on the Fusion (which I assume does not count toward "interior space") is bigger than the trunk of a Prius. So the difference in fuel efficiency isn't as egregious as you might think. Plus I can't remember if the trunk of the Prius is walled off from the interior like a normal sedan, or if there's open access to the trunk from the back seat (like an SUV or station wagon). If it's the latter, maybe then that space gets counted as "interior space"? I admittedly don't know the layout of the Prius nor how "interior space" is calculated so this is all speculation.

Then there's dozens of other factors to consider to contribute to the difference in fuel efficiency such as horsepower, aesthetics, safety, etc.

Or just hate on the car based on its nationality. I suppose that's as arbitrary as any other reason to hate on a car. Either or.


RE: Meh
By Yawgm0th on 1/28/2009 3:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a 6.

My big thing against the Prius has always been that it has a ridiculous body. The Ford Fusion hybrid looks awesome, will probably handle these Minnesota winters better, and I expect it's going to be a great car all around. I'm already pretty much settled on buying one, once I can afford it.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
2010 Toyota Prius Officially Unveiled
January 12, 2009, 1:44 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki