Buy Ford

[vtmdsm27]

Ford turns a profit without socialized bailout - all my cars from now until I die will be Ford or Mercury!

[garner49]

I have owned Ford before: a '61 Galaxy, a '65 Fairlane 500, a '67 Cougar XR7, a '71 Thunderbird, and a '72 Capri. If Ford had anything that I really wanted, I would consider them; but not at this time. But yes, I will keep an eye on them just because they aren't government owned, for my next vehicle. I do have a Mazda, Ford owned.

Congrats to Ford...

[quicksilverdon]

Ford is to be commended for planning ahead, but that does not mean they make the best cars.

As to Government owned, here's the Chrysler deal:
"Fiat will now own a 20% equity stake in the new company, which will grow to a 35% stake if certain milestones are achieved. Fiat cannot own a majority stake until all taxpayer funds are returned.

The United Auto Workers union, through its VEBA health care trust, owns a 55% stake in the company, while the U.S. taxpayer owns a 8% stake in Chrysler. "

I would not call 8% "government owned". (yeah the % does not add to 100%, but it's from Fox - facts aren't their stong point)

What about the Wall Street bailouts? Are you taking your money out of banks?

[cruserdad1976]

That statement is kind of like "I Only buy AMERICAN"
please define exact ally what that word means ---was it put together in America??? lots of cars are are the parts 100% i don't think any cars are
Fords did plan ahead and good for them but they still make cars that are ugly and as overpriced as any body else---me if it isnt a PT or maybe the charger it will be CHEVY

bow tie to the bitter end

[cdynaco]

Originally Posted by cruserdad1976

Fords did plan ahead and good for them but they still make cars that are ugly and as overpriced as any body else---me if it isnt a PT or maybe the charger it will be CHEVY

bow tie to the bitter end

Surely you jest... LOL

[cruserdad1976]

Ok that looks pretty cool r u sure it is a foRD

[jbcrzn]

My first reaction with this year's earlier events was very similar, in that I would rather buy from a private or publicly traded company, not Government Motors. However, there are a few things that play into vehicular decisions for me, and one would be where do we stop with the government funding? If I decided that I was not going to buy a car from a government funded company (no matter to what extent), then I would have to remove Ford from the list, as they accepted money for future alternative fuel development from the DOE. Those are costs they are not having to front the developmental monies for, so, while I do not like they did that, it would not be enough for me to remove them from my list.

I did not like Chrysler accepting money in the three decades ago, nor do I like it this time, however, I like Chrysler vehicles and I prefer certain vehicles from Chrysler, GM, and Ford to other competitors. I looked at three direct competitors before I bought the PT. As I mentioned in another post, I had decided to buy another vehicle and would have if I had not driven the PT by chance. This is not to demean any vehicle, but the PT suited my needs better than any other vehicle on the road. The last few times that I have been at the dealer, I have looked at other Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep offerings, and most would suit needs for different occasions. I would be inclined to look at Chrysler products first, but if Ford had one on the market that was of direct competition and I felt that both vehicles were on equal ground, the bailout would remain in the back of my mind and could lead me to buy on over a Chrysler. The primary point is that the selections have to fit my needs.

[cdynaco]

Originally Posted by jbcrzn

My first reaction with this year's earlier events was very similar, in that I would rather buy from a private or publicly traded company, not Government Motors. However, there are a few things that play into vehicular decisions for me, and one would be where do we stop with the government funding? If I decided that I was not going to buy a car from a government funded company (no matter to what extent), then I would have to remove Ford from the list, as they accepted money for future alternative fuel development from the DOE. Those are costs they are not having to front the developmental monies for, so, while I do not like they did that, it would not be enough for me to remove them from my list.

Those are two separate issues. Government steering private industry (such as for better fuel efficiency) is one thing. Sort of a 'funded mandate' vs Federal 'unfunded mandates' that the State's often complain about. Giving up control of your company to socialists in D.C. - that fires your CEO, forces closure of thousands of independently owned businesses (Dealerships) that employed thousands of families and vendors, and tells you what you can and cannot earn at your job - is another thing entirely.

Ford was not part of the TARP bailout funds.

The TARP bailout required GM & Chrysler to give up a percentage of ownership & control to the Gov in the form of preferred shares (which drastically diluted [harmed] the common shareholders - which include millions of private citizens that held GM common. Chrysler was privately held by Cerberus at the time as you know.). This is how the Administration could force Rick Wagoner out of his CEO post. And this is in stark contrast to when the Gov made an interest bearing loan to Iaccoca without requiring an ownership stake.

The Gov has no such control over Ford's Mulally at this time because no Ford shares have been given to the Gov.

[jbcrzn]

I agree that the loans of the early 80's were different in the structure/control of the agreement. I would also argue that Chrysler would have survived without the loan, be it a longer recovery process.

I also agree with the czar behavior toward GM and Chrysler (among other companies) from the administration shows an amount of government control and a willingness to appease the public outcries, similar to the private plane debacle earlier. So, from a function, administrative perspective, I agree, but from a practical standpoint, reallocated stolen money is the same, whether provided for daily operations, purchasing power, or future product development. I was merely posing the question as to what is the line from which the company does not return? For many (many that I know personally), they either have or have had their last GM or Chrysler product and will be purchasing a Ford, a Japanese, or a Korean manufacturer. The other argument that I have reviewed cites the reason for Chrysler's current situation more with previous owners, not Chrysler itself. Whether one blames Chrysler's operation or the owners, I certainly understand the cause against them and do struggle with how much of an impact that will make on my future purchases.

[cruserdad1976]

You know guys it really dosent matter anyway

The car industry is nothing like it was 30 years ago .you know when the customer was the boss

The good life has caught up with us , we can not keep paying the UAW workers what they want, then pay the managers what they want ,and the top dogs taking there huge share, that life is over.
some body has to make some concessions someplace.

when a new pick up cost over $40,000 we have a problem , what person in there right mind would even want to take that truck and go into the woods to cut wood??? haul gravel????or use it as a truck sure its pretty and its hi tec but all we really needed was a truck?????

Can you imagine what people like Henry ford would say today????

Oh well im not arguing with any body but things do have to change and it looks like they are not changing for the best