|
Ford car production ain't what it used to be
Ford car production ain't what it used to be
Automotive News December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become the No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at six plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants through the first 10 months of 2006. It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North America. Ford loses its place North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped two places since last year. Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change 1. General Motors 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old Taurus - representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other Ford cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, 28,947; Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also passed Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 months of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up Versa production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include all those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and SUVs? Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:13l7riv6l5kkdde@corp.supernews.com... > Ford car production ain't what it used to be > > Automotive News > December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET > > Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become the > No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held > that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. > Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. > > From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at six > plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants > through the first 10 months of 2006. > > It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of > 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North > America. > > Ford loses its place > North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped > two places since last year. > Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change > 1. General Motors 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% > 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% > 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% > 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% > 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% > 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% > > The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old Taurus - > representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other Ford > cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, 28,947; > Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. > > Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also > passed Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. > > Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, > rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 months > of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up Versa > production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. > > Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include > all those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and > SUVs? Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. The people who work for Ford are the same people pushing for Iraq War... Like the Surge for example, if the Surge is working then why pushing for another $50 billion Surge? Soon we all will line up for soup, sooner or later the country will realize the mistake like Ford motor, making huge trucks years after years, same idea, same people. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 that
sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, because that is what buys want to buy. For every car sold in the US in 2007 there is a truck sold in the US, why do you think Nissan and Toyota offer Trucks and Honda even tried to make a "truck" out of the Accord with the Ridgeline? The second and third best sellers are the Chevy and Dodge truck, not cars ;) "Tim" <Busher@noway.com> wrote in message news:fj21vc$mtl$1@aioe.org... > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:13l7riv6l5kkdde@corp.supernews.com... >> Ford car production ain't what it used to be >> >> Automotive News >> December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET >> >> Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become the >> No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held >> that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. >> Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. >> >> From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at six >> plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants >> through the first 10 months of 2006. >> >> It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of >> 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North >> America. >> >> Ford loses its place >> North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped >> two places since last year. >> Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change >> 1. General Motors 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% >> 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% >> 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% >> 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% >> 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% >> 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% >> >> The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old Taurus - >> representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other Ford >> cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, >> 28,947; Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. >> >> Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also >> passed Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. >> >> Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, >> rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 >> months of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up >> Versa production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. >> >> Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include >> all those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and >> SUVs? Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. > > The people who work for Ford are the same people pushing for Iraq War... > Like the Surge for example, if the Surge is working then why pushing for > another $50 billion Surge? Soon we all will line up for soup, sooner or > later the country will realize the mistake like Ford motor, making huge > trucks years after years, same idea, same people. > > > > > > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
Tim wrote:
> The people who work for Ford are the same people pushing for Iraq War... Gee, I didn't know *that*. Is it a union thing? |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:13l7riv6l5kkdde@corp.supernews.com... > Ford car production ain't what it used to be > > Automotive News > December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET > > Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become the > No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held > that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. > Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. > > From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at six > plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants > through the first 10 months of 2006. > > It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of > 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North > America. > > Ford loses its place > North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped > two places since last year. > Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change > 1. General Motors 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% > 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% > 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% > 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% > 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% > 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% > > The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old Taurus - > representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other Ford > cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, 28,947; > Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. > > Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also > passed Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. > > Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, > rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 months > of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up Versa > production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. > > Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include > all those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and > SUVs? Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. I have had good service from my Ford vehicles 1/2 ton trucks 1952, 1957, 1971 a 1956 T Bird a 1992 E250 van a 1967 Bronco. But when I wanted a 4WD SUV to do some rough 4 wheeling Ford did not meet my specifications. So I bought a Nissan product. A Infinity 2001 QX4. Great machine. Handles deep rivers and steep stair step rocky terrain. My favorite. Smooth clearance under side. No hanging items to catch on rocks. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com>
wrote: >DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 that >sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >because that is what buys want to buy. Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. F-series 635,520 -12.4% Camry 434,277 + 5.8% Accord 360,976 +10.8% If this trend continues, the F-series could be down to #3 in about three years. >For every car sold in the US in 2007 there is a truck sold in the US, why do >you think Nissan and Toyota offer Trucks and Honda even tried to make a >"truck" out of the Accord with the Ridgeline? The second and third best >sellers are the Chevy and Dodge truck, not cars ;) Bzzzt. Oh, I'm sorry. The correct answer (based on sales YTD) is: 1. F-Series 2. Silverado 3. Camry 4. Accord 5. Corolla 6. Ram Better luck next time. BTW, Ram was 4th in sales last year behind Camry so your "facts" are at least a year out of date. <http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/BUSINESS01/712020646/1002> Hey Mike, care to comment on US Ford sales falling behind Toyota this year? Or the fact that Toyota may pass Chevy to be the best selling brand? > >"Tim" <Busher@noway.com> wrote in message news:fj21vc$mtl$1@aioe.org... >> >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:13l7riv6l5kkdde@corp.supernews.com... >>> Ford car production ain't what it used to be >>> >>> Automotive News >>> December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET >>> >>> Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become the >>> No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held >>> that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. >>> Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. >>> >>> From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at six >>> plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants >>> through the first 10 months of 2006. >>> >>> It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of >>> 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North >>> America. >>> >>> Ford loses its place >>> North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped >>> two places since last year. >>> Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change >>> 1. General Motors 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% >>> 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% >>> 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% >>> 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% >>> 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% >>> 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% >>> >>> The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old Taurus - >>> representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other Ford >>> cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, >>> 28,947; Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. >>> >>> Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also >>> passed Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. >>> >>> Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, >>> rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 >>> months of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up >>> Versa production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. >>> >>> Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include >>> all those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and >>> SUVs? Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. >> >> The people who work for Ford are the same people pushing for Iraq War... >> Like the Surge for example, if the Surge is working then why pushing for >> another $50 billion Surge? Soon we all will line up for soup, sooner or >> later the country will realize the mistake like Ford motor, making huge >> trucks years after years, same idea, same people. >> >> >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
That's what happens when they don't build vehicles the customers want.
And now all three in Detroit are under new management. I like the turnaround in GM so far. Time will tell. On Dec 3, 3:54 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote: > Ford car production ain't what it used to be > > Automotive News > December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET > > Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become the > No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held > that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. > Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. > > From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at six > plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants > through the first 10 months of 2006. > > It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of > 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North > America. > > Ford loses its place > North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped two > places since last year. > Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change > 1. General Motors-- 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% > 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% > 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% > 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% > 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% > 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% > > The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old Taurus - > representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other Ford > cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, 28,947; > Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. > > Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also passed > Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. > > Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, > rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 months > of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up Versa > production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. > > Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include all > those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and SUVs? > Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
<johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:210f75f0-c172-4756-886c-81537d0033e6@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > That's what happens when they don't build vehicles the customers want. > And now all three in Detroit are under new management. I like the > turnaround in GM so far. Time will tell. So where does that leave Toyota? For the last ten years they have devoted far more dollars in the US to building ever larger trucks and SUVs. The Toyota car line is stagnant (except for the Prius). Seems to me they have been following exactly the same strategy as Ford. The only difference being they have a protected home market, lower cost labor, and a lot of positive press for some really ordinary products (as a friend of mind explained it - Toyotas are EXTRA ORDINARY). Almost every company that sells vehicles in the US has rushed to produce some mix of vans, SUVs, Crossovers, and Trucks. Even BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, and VW are selling SUVs. Apparently the Ford strategy was not so bad. Ed > On Dec 3, 3:54 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote: >> Ford car production ain't what it used to be >> >> Automotive News >> December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET >> >> Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become the >> No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held >> that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. >> Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. >> >> From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at six >> plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants >> through the first 10 months of 2006. >> >> It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of >> 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North >> America. >> >> Ford loses its place >> North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped >> two >> places since last year. >> Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change >> 1. General Motors-- 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% >> 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% >> 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% >> 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% >> 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% >> 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% >> >> The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old Taurus - >> representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other Ford >> cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, >> 28,947; >> Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. >> >> Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also >> passed >> Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. >> >> Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, >> rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 >> months >> of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up Versa >> production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. >> >> Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include >> all >> those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and >> SUVs? >> Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:l1f9l3tpo6ip33al11h29c08dhhumlaeua@4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> > wrote: > >>DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 that >>sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >>because that is what buys want to buy. > > Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently > above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. Well the November news was not all bad for Ford. They actually sold more vehicle in November of 2007 than November 0f 2006. And in fact, Ford's monthly sales were up more in November of this year (compared to last November) than were Toyotas (Ford was up 0.6%, Toyota was up 0.3%). And apparently the new Tundra is turning into a disaster. Despite piling on incentives, Tundra sales can only be described as extremely disappointing (sales fell in November, and it is unlikely that Toyota will meet it sales goals for the new monster truck). In my opinion, Toyota screwed the pooch on this one. They replaced a reasonable sized truck with a ridiculously large loser. I do see a few of them around town now, but the only person I know that owns one is very disappointed. It sucks gas and rattles like an old Dodge. Ed |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Ed White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:13l9kkvg91ug288@corp.supernews.com... > > <johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:210f75f0-c172-4756-886c-81537d0033e6@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> That's what happens when they don't build vehicles the customers want. >> And now all three in Detroit are under new management. I like the >> turnaround in GM so far. Time will tell. > > So where does that leave Toyota? For the last ten years they have devoted > far more dollars in the US to building ever larger trucks and SUVs. The > Toyota car line is stagnant (except for the Prius). The Camry was all-new for 2007 and included a hybrid version. The xB is new. The xD is new. The Yaris was introduced within the last two years. The Rav was all-new in 2006. The Tundra is new in 2007. The 4Runner was extensively reworked (don't know if it was a chassis-up changeover) in the last few years. The Avalon is all-new in the last couple of years. The FJ Cruiser is recent. The Highlander is all-new this year. The Corolla is expected to be replaced this year. The Sienna was new in 2004. The Tacoma is new in the last couple of years. You have a curious definition of "stagnant." > Seems to me they have been following exactly the same strategy as Ford. > The only difference being they have a protected home market, lower cost > labor, and a lot of positive press for some really ordinary products (as a > friend of mind explained it - Toyotas are EXTRA ORDINARY). Almost every > company that sells vehicles in the US has rushed to produce some mix of > vans, SUVs, Crossovers, and Trucks. Even BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, and VW > are selling SUVs. Apparently the Ford strategy was not so bad. > > Ed > >> On Dec 3, 3:54 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> Ford car production ain't what it used to be >>> >>> Automotive News >>> December 3, 2007 - 12:01 am ET >>> >>> Fifty-seven years ago, Ford Motor Co. passed Chrysler Corp. to become >>> the >>> No. 2 producer of cars in North America behind General Motors. Ford held >>> that position from 1950 through 2006, but this year things have changed. >>> Ford has slipped from second place in car output to fourth place. >>> >>> From January through October of this year, Ford built 711,889 cars at >>> six >>> plants in North America. That's down from 998,989 cars in seven plants >>> through the first 10 months of 2006. >>> >>> It's been a tough decade for Ford cars. Consider the first 10 months of >>> 2000. During that stretch, Ford produced about 1.5 million cars in North >>> America. >>> >>> Ford loses its place >>> North American car production, excluding light trucks. Ford has slipped >>> two >>> places since last year. >>> Jan.-Oct. 07 Jan.-Oct. 06 % change >>> 1. General Motors-- 1,403,701 1,657,582 -15.3% >>> 2. Toyota Motor Corp. 835,332 799,996 4.40% >>> 3. Honda Motor Co. 722,918 705,168 2.50% >>> 4. Ford Motor Co. 711,889 998,989 -28.7% >>> 5. Nissan Motor Co. 697,748 578,853 20.50% >>> 6. Chrysler LLC 659,316 678,582 -2.8% >>> >>> The dropoff this year was mainly caused by the demise of the old >>> Taurus - >>> representing a decline of 174,124 units in 2007 from 2006. But other >>> Ford >>> cars are down, too. Focus production is off 34,697 units; Mustang, >>> 28,947; >>> Fusion, 15,923; and the new Taurus/Five Hundred, 11,104. >>> >>> Toyota Motor Corp. is the new No. 2 in 2007, and Honda Motor Co. also >>> passed >>> Ford. Nissan Motor Co. is close on Ford's heels. >>> >>> Nissan has had the biggest gain this year in North American car output, >>> rising from 578,853 through October 2006 to 697,748 in the first 10 >>> months >>> of this year - and passing Chrysler LLC in the process. Ramping up Versa >>> production in Aguascalientes, Mexico, is the main reason. >>> >>> Where does Ford rank in total light-vehicle production - if you include >>> all >>> those F-150s it builds, as well as other Ford and Lincoln trucks and >>> SUVs? >>> Still a solid No. 2 behind GM. >> > > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:l1f9l3tpo6ip33al11h29c08dhhumlaeua@4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> > wrote: > >>DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 that >>sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >>because that is what buys want to buy. > > Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently > above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. > > > F-series 635,520 -12.4% > Camry 434,277 + 5.8% > Accord 360,976 +10.8% > Yup! Soon the number will go like this: F-series 635,520 -32.4% Camry 434,277 + 35.8% Accord 360,976 +30.8% Still in your denial ha Mike Hunt? Go check out Craigslist, lots of F-series owners trying to sell theirs.... Heehee.... |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
<johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:210f75f0-c172-4756-886c-81537d0033e6@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > That's what happens when they don't build vehicles the customers want. > And now all three in Detroit are under new management. I like the > turnaround in GM so far. Time will tell. > And so far GMC and FORD bought parts from CHINA... Can you interpret that? Plus Bush pour all our resources to develop IRAQ. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
> But when I wanted a 4WD SUV to do some rough 4 wheeling Ford did not meet my
> specifications. > So I bought a Nissan product. A Infinity 2001 QX4. Great machine. Handles > deep rivers and steep stair step rocky terrain. My favorite. Smooth > clearance under side. No hanging items to catch on rocks. > > Theres no hanging items on fords or chevs ;) |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message news:fj2kmd$3c2$1@news.albasani.net... > "Ed White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:13l9kkvg91ug288@corp.supernews.com... >> >> <johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:210f75f0-c172-4756-886c-81537d0033e6@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> That's what happens when they don't build vehicles the customers want. >>> And now all three in Detroit are under new management. I like the >>> turnaround in GM so far. Time will tell. >> >> So where does that leave Toyota? For the last ten years they have devoted >> far more dollars in the US to building ever larger trucks and SUVs. The >> Toyota car line is stagnant (except for the Prius). > > The Camry was all-new for 2007 and included a hybrid version. The xB is > new. The xD is new. The Yaris was introduced within the last two years. > The Rav was all-new in 2006. The Tundra is new in 2007. The 4Runner was > extensively reworked (don't know if it was a chassis-up changeover) in the > last few years. The Avalon is all-new in the last couple of years. The > FJ Cruiser is recent. The Highlander is all-new this year. The Corolla > is expected to be replaced this year. The Sienna was new in 2004. The > Tacoma is new in the last couple of years. > > You have a curious definition of "stagnant." I said "car line." Most of the vehicle you are claiming to be new are trucks or SUVs (or Scions). The point is that Toyota is following exactly the same strategy people are claiming was a bad move for Ford. I suppose the one exception is the "all new" Camry for 2007. But then Ford had an all new Mustang in 2004, all new 500 in 2005, and all new Fusion in 2006. The Yaris is just a warmed over Japanese product. There are a few new Scion models, but they are mostly just warmed over Japanese models sold as Scions (not Toyotas). The point is, Toyota and Ford seem to be following exactly the same strategy. When Ford concentrates on trucks and SUVs while skimping on new "cars" they are criticized for following a bad strategy. When Toyota follows the same strategy, it is considered a good strategy. Ed |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:13lasdns4p8680@corp.supernews.com... > > "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message > news:fj2kmd$3c2$1@news.albasani.net... >> "Ed White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:13l9kkvg91ug288@corp.supernews.com... >>> >>> <johngdole@hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:210f75f0-c172-4756-886c-81537d0033e6@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>>> That's what happens when they don't build vehicles the customers want. >>>> And now all three in Detroit are under new management. I like the >>>> turnaround in GM so far. Time will tell. >>> >>> So where does that leave Toyota? For the last ten years they have >>> devoted far more dollars in the US to building ever larger trucks and >>> SUVs. The Toyota car line is stagnant (except for the Prius). >> >> The Camry was all-new for 2007 and included a hybrid version. The xB is >> new. The xD is new. The Yaris was introduced within the last two years. >> The Rav was all-new in 2006. The Tundra is new in 2007. The 4Runner was >> extensively reworked (don't know if it was a chassis-up changeover) in >> the last few years. The Avalon is all-new in the last couple of years. >> The FJ Cruiser is recent. The Highlander is all-new this year. The >> Corolla is expected to be replaced this year. The Sienna was new in >> 2004. The Tacoma is new in the last couple of years. >> >> You have a curious definition of "stagnant." > > I said "car line." Most of the vehicle you are claiming to be new are > trucks or SUVs (or Scions). The point is that Toyota is following exactly > the same strategy people are claiming was a bad move for Ford. > > I suppose the one exception is the "all new" Camry for 2007. But then Ford > had an all new Mustang in 2004, all new 500 in 2005, and all new Fusion in Come on now Ed, the Mustang was all new for 2005. :-) > 2006. The Yaris is just a warmed over Japanese product. There are a few > new Scion models, but they are mostly just warmed over Japanese models > sold as Scions (not Toyotas). The point is, Toyota and Ford seem to be > following exactly the same strategy. When Ford concentrates on trucks and > SUVs while skimping on new "cars" they are criticized for following a bad > strategy. When Toyota follows the same strategy, it is considered a good > strategy. > > Ed > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote in message news:Vme5j.7711$o_6.2647@trnddc08... >> I suppose the one exception is the "all new" Camry for 2007. But then >> Ford had an all new Mustang in 2004, all new 500 in 2005, and all new >> Fusion in > > Come on now Ed, the Mustang was all new for 2005. :-) You are correct. Ed |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Picasso" <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in message news:47552ae4$0$5298$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net... >> But when I wanted a 4WD SUV to do some rough 4 wheeling Ford did not meet >> my specifications. >> So I bought a Nissan product. A Infinity 2001 QX4. Great machine. Handles >> deep rivers and steep stair step rocky terrain. My favorite. Smooth >> clearance under side. No hanging items to catch on rocks. > > Theres no hanging items on fords or chevs ;) Look at the shocks on rear. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
Perhaps but the fact remains as of today the two best selling vehicles are
trucks not cars and both GM and Ford outsell any import. Not too many years ago Ford was the best selling 'brand' in the US and the same pundits were predicting Ford Motor Company would outsell GM in the US 'if the trend continued,' but you are entitled to you own opinion ;) "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:l1f9l3tpo6ip33al11h29c08dhhumlaeua@4ax.com... > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> > wrote: > >>DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 that >>sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >>because that is what buys want to buy. >>For every car sold in the US in 2007 there is a truck sold in the US, why >>do >>you think Nissan and Toyota offer Trucks and Honda even tried to make a >>"truck" out of the Accord with the Ridgeline? The second and third best >>sellers are the Chevy and Dodge truck, not cars ;) > > > Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently > above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. > > > F-series 635,520 -12.4% > Camry 434,277 + 5.8% > Accord 360,976 +10.8% > > If this trend continues, the F-series could be down to #3 in about > three years. > > Bzzzt. Oh, I'm sorry. The correct answer (based on sales YTD) is: > > 1. F-Series > 2. Silverado > 3. Camry > 4. Accord > 5. Corolla > 6. Ram > > Better luck next time. > > BTW, Ram was 4th in sales last year behind Camry so your "facts" are > at least a year out of date. > > <http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/BUSINESS01/712020646/1002> > > Hey Mike, care to comment on US Ford sales falling behind Toyota this > year? Or the fact that Toyota may pass Chevy to be the best selling > brand? |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
Toyota does well with their imported midget, small and now American
assembled midsize cars and the union made small trucks but when it comes to full size cars and trucks they are an "also rans." The Avalon, the T100 have been sales slugs and the Tundra is turning out to be a disaster. If the Toyota loyalist want a Tundra they should go to one of the Manheim Auto Auctions. Brand new 47K 4WD Tundras are going through the block as low as the mid twenties "Ed White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:13l9l5unit0qgaa@corp.supernews.com... > > "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:l1f9l3tpo6ip33al11h29c08dhhumlaeua@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> >> wrote: >> >>>DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 >>>that >>>sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >>>because that is what buys want to buy. >> >> Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently >> above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. > > Well the November news was not all bad for Ford. They actually sold more > vehicle in November of 2007 than November 0f 2006. And in fact, Ford's > monthly sales were up more in November of this year (compared to last > November) than were Toyotas (Ford was up 0.6%, Toyota was up 0.3%). > > And apparently the new Tundra is turning into a disaster. Despite piling > on incentives, Tundra sales can only be described as extremely > disappointing (sales fell in November, and it is unlikely that Toyota will > meet it sales goals for the new monster truck). In my opinion, Toyota > screwed the pooch on this one. They replaced a reasonable sized truck with > a ridiculously large loser. I do see a few of them around town now, but > the only person I know that owns one is very disappointed. It sucks gas > and rattles like an old Dodge. > > Ed > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
Perhaps but the F150 is still by far the best selling vehicle in the US
Hee Hee "Tim" <Busher@noway.com> wrote in message news:fj2llk$md2$1@aioe.org... > > "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:l1f9l3tpo6ip33al11h29c08dhhumlaeua@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> >> wrote: >> >>>DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 >>>that >>>sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >>>because that is what buys want to buy. >> >> Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently >> above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. >> >> >> F-series 635,520 -12.4% >> Camry 434,277 + 5.8% >> Accord 360,976 +10.8% >> > > Yup! Soon the number will go like this: > > F-series 635,520 -32.4% > Camry 434,277 + 35.8% > Accord 360,976 +30.8% > > Still in your denial ha Mike Hunt? Go check out Craigslist, lots of > F-series owners trying to sell theirs.... Heehee.... > > > > > > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Warren Weber" <hiview@bresnan.net> wrote in message news:zsydnVlpvcDd6MjanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@bresnan.com. .. > > "Picasso" <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:47552ae4$0$5298$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net... >>> But when I wanted a 4WD SUV to do some rough 4 wheeling Ford did not >>> meet my specifications. >>> So I bought a Nissan product. A Infinity 2001 QX4. Great machine. >>> Handles deep rivers and steep stair step rocky terrain. My favorite. >>> Smooth clearance under side. No hanging items to catch on rocks. >> >> Theres no hanging items on fords or chevs ;) > > Look at the shocks on rear. You mean like a current Explorer or Expedition with IRS? The shocks are in a unit with the coil springs and don't hang down at all. What do you call that big round thing hanging down in the center of a Infiniti Pathfinder or is it a Nissan QX4...... Ed |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:13lb9mppmpt4u36@corp.supernews.com... > > "Warren Weber" <hiview@bresnan.net> wrote in message > news:zsydnVlpvcDd6MjanZ2dnUVZ_oqhnZ2d@bresnan.com. .. >> >> "Picasso" <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:47552ae4$0$5298$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net... >>>> But when I wanted a 4WD SUV to do some rough 4 wheeling Ford did not >>>> meet my specifications. >>>> So I bought a Nissan product. A Infinity 2001 QX4. Great machine. >>>> Handles deep rivers and steep stair step rocky terrain. My favorite. >>>> Smooth clearance under side. No hanging items to catch on rocks. >>> >>> Theres no hanging items on fords or chevs ;) >> >> Look at the shocks on rear. > > You mean like a current Explorer or Expedition with IRS? The shocks are in > a unit with the coil springs and don't hang down at all. What do you call > that big round thing hanging down in the center of a Infiniti Pathfinder > or is it a Nissan QX4...... > > Ed It's called Suspension. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:19:44 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net> wrote:
>Tim wrote: > >> The people who work for Ford are the same people pushing for Iraq War... > >Gee, I didn't know *that*. Is it a union thing? Yup. Contract demand 479799025B. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiricy Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:30:26 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com>
wrote: >Perhaps but the fact remains as of today the two best selling vehicles are >trucks not cars and both GM and Ford outsell any import. Not too many years >ago Ford was the best selling 'brand' in the US and the same pundits were >predicting Ford Motor Company would outsell GM in the US 'if the trend >continued,' but you are entitled to you own opinion ;) Well Ford is going to be #3 in US sales as of 2007 and that isn't my opinion, it's a fact you can take to the bank. As for Toyota beating Chevy in 2007, that is a toss-up right now. So these two pickups are the best sellers, so what? That will be scant consolation if Ford and GM go under. It is profit that counts at the end of the day. Either Toyota or Honda could afford to buy both GM and Ford just to put them out of their misery. >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:l1f9l3tpo6ip33al11h29c08dhhumlaeua@4ax.com.. . >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> >> wrote: >> >>>DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 that >>>sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >>>because that is what buys want to buy. > >>>For every car sold in the US in 2007 there is a truck sold in the US, why >>>do >>>you think Nissan and Toyota offer Trucks and Honda even tried to make a >>>"truck" out of the Accord with the Ridgeline? The second and third best >>>sellers are the Chevy and Dodge truck, not cars ;) >> >> >> Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently >> above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. >> >> >> F-series 635,520 -12.4% >> Camry 434,277 + 5.8% >> Accord 360,976 +10.8% >> >> If this trend continues, the F-series could be down to #3 in about >> three years. >> >> Bzzzt. Oh, I'm sorry. The correct answer (based on sales YTD) is: >> >> 1. F-Series >> 2. Silverado >> 3. Camry >> 4. Accord >> 5. Corolla >> 6. Ram >> >> Better luck next time. >> >> BTW, Ram was 4th in sales last year behind Camry so your "facts" are >> at least a year out of date. >> >> <http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/BUSINESS01/712020646/1002> >> >> Hey Mike, care to comment on US Ford sales falling behind Toyota this >> year? Or the fact that Toyota may pass Chevy to be the best selling >> brand? > |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:17:11 -0500, "Ed White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote: > >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:l1f9l3tpo6ip33al11h29c08dhhumlaeua@4ax.com.. . >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:37:55 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> >> wrote: >> >>>DUH! Ford still sells the highest volume vehicle in the US, the F150 that >>>sells at a rate nearly twice that of the Camry, the best selling car, >>>because that is what buys want to buy. >> >> Ford isn't selling as many F150s now that gas seems to be permanently >> above $3. Sales are down 12% so far this year. > >Well the November news was not all bad for Ford. They actually sold more >vehicle in November of 2007 than November 0f 2006. And in fact, Ford's >monthly sales were up more in November of this year (compared to last >November) than were Toyotas (Ford was up 0.6%, Toyota was up 0.3%). True but... Toyota's basis (what they sold in November 2006) was a record month, as was November 2007. Ford is up 0.6% over being in the toilet. Toyota outsold Ford in November by 15,000. If you look at the year rather than just one month, Toyota is up 4% and Ford is down 12% versus 2006. >And apparently the new Tundra is turning into a disaster. Despite piling on >incentives, Tundra sales can only be described as extremely disappointing >(sales fell in November, and it is unlikely that Toyota will meet it sales >goals for the new monster truck). In my opinion, Toyota screwed the pooch on >this one. They replaced a reasonable sized truck with a ridiculously large >loser. I do see a few of them around town now, but the only person I know >that owns one is very disappointed. It sucks gas and rattles like an old >Dodge. Good. I am glad to see any of these stupid trucks fail in the marketplace. Maybe it will influence them and the other automakers to build more sensible vehicles. I would guess that 90% of the pickups I see (admittedly it is an urban environment) are being used for jobs that could be better served by a subcompact. I think $3 gas is doing a lot of good. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:83qbl39p9smo26vk584u8t2ehumpd9p4fr@4ax.com... > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:30:26 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> > wrote: > >>Perhaps but the fact remains as of today the two best selling vehicles are >>trucks not cars and both GM and Ford outsell any import. Not too many >>years >>ago Ford was the best selling 'brand' in the US and the same pundits were >>predicting Ford Motor Company would outsell GM in the US 'if the trend >>continued,' but you are entitled to you own opinion ;) > > Well Ford is going to be #3 in US sales as of 2007 and that isn't my > opinion, it's a fact you can take to the bank. As for Toyota beating > Chevy in 2007, that is a toss-up right now. Fact is something already happened. Calling your own prediction as fact? No it aint no fact, I'm afraid you will be disappointed, because what already happened may not repeat itself. Because Ford moves too slow, the Chinese carmakers will beat all of you up again, with cheaper and good gas cars. Go to Habor Freight, and Walmat and enlighten yourself. The Chinese investors now are buying American banks. I used to hear you called the Chinese hyping, man we're 180 degree direction!! Sad sad... I am poorer and poorer with you, make no mistake, I am trying to wake you up. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:13lat59kpldif26@corp.supernews.com... > > "My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote in message > news:Vme5j.7711$o_6.2647@trnddc08... > > >> I suppose the one exception is the "all new" Camry for 2007. But then > >> Ford had an all new Mustang in 2004, all new 500 in 2005, and all new > >> Fusion in > > > > Come on now Ed, the Mustang was all new for 2005. :-) > > You are correct. > Whall, you see part of the problem is that most of the auto pundits out there, like the people that write the reviews in Car and Driver and such, have not reconciled to the fact that a basic truck is extremely utilitaritian and functional. You can haul plywood, a motorcycle, a couch, move across town, you name it. If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a fairly fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan of course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what. There's enough of the new car buying public that recognize this that light and mid sized trucks are always going to sell well in the US. Personally I can't stand the look of the things - any pickup truck after 1955 looks like a Mexican/white trailer trashmobile in my book - and I'll never be caught dead owning one. I do my hauling with a trailer. But I see the point that dealing with hauling out a utility trailer from the shed and linking it up takes a lot more time than just walking out to the street and tossing whatever piece of crap you need to haul into the truck bed then driving off. New car buyers generally either buy for image reasons (ie: Prius) or for functionality. Trucks are extremely functional, it's no wonder they are as popular as they are. Most of the auto pundits out there are so focused on the image thing they have lost touch with the functionality end of it. Ted |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:40:25 -0800, "Tim" <Busher@noway.com> wrote:
> >"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message >news:83qbl39p9smo26vk584u8t2ehumpd9p4fr@4ax.com.. . >> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:30:26 -0500, "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> >> wrote: >> >>>Perhaps but the fact remains as of today the two best selling vehicles are >>>trucks not cars and both GM and Ford outsell any import. Not too many >>>years >>>ago Ford was the best selling 'brand' in the US and the same pundits were >>>predicting Ford Motor Company would outsell GM in the US 'if the trend >>>continued,' but you are entitled to you own opinion ;) >> >> Well Ford is going to be #3 in US sales as of 2007 and that isn't my >> opinion, it's a fact you can take to the bank. As for Toyota beating >> Chevy in 2007, that is a toss-up right now. > >Fact is something already happened. Calling your own prediction as fact? >No it aint no fact, I'm afraid you will be disappointed, because what >already happened may not repeat itself. Ford is too far behind now to catch up. Baring a miracle which isn't going to happen, Toyota will outsell Ford in the US in 2007. It's a done deal. > Because Ford moves too slow, the >Chinese carmakers will beat all of you up again, with cheaper and good gas >cars. So far that hasn't happened. In fact they haven't sold a single car here yet. Regardless of what the Chinese do, Ford is #3 and dropping. > Go to Habor Freight, and Walmat and enlighten yourself. Familiar with both of these retailers. OK if you need something cheap. I wouldn't use Harbor Freight tools to work on my go kart. > The Chinese >investors now are buying American banks. Hell, they are buying America thanks to Bush's deficit financing of the disaster in Iraq. > I used to hear you called the >Chinese hyping, man we're 180 degree direction!! Haven't a clue what you are talking about. If you are referring to something I said on Usenet, please provide a Google Groups link. > Sad sad... I am poorer >and poorer with you, make no mistake, I am trying to wake you up. I am not poor. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net... > If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a > fairly > fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan > of > course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what. Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form. ---JRE--- |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow" <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote: > "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message > news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net... >> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a >> fairly >> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan >> of >> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what. > > Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed > creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no > tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form. > > ---JRE--- > > > Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them removed. Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in message news:C37D942A.2AFCE%epmeyer50@msn.com... > > > > On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article > 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow" > <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote: > >> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message >> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net... >>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a >>> fairly >>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a >>> sedan >>> of >>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what. >> >> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed >> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no >> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form. >> >> ---JRE--- >> >> >> > Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of > different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the > truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them > removed. > Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage. From CR Online: Truck tailgate Q. My neighbor told me to remove the tailgate of my truck for better mileage. What is your take on this matter? A. Several years back, CR said that lowering or removing the tailgate gate made only a marginal difference in gas mileage and in most cases simply does not improve mileage. We are still sticking with that report. Also, the tailgate is part of the structure of the vehicle and when removed, makes the bed of the truck weaker. You might aslo want to review: http://web.archive.org/web/200303101...ffner/base.jpg http://web.archive.org/web/200304142...affner/Net.htm http://web.archive.org/web/200304142...emove_gate.htm |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
E Meyer wrote:
> > > On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article > 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow" > <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote: > >> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message >> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net... >>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a >>> fairly >>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan >>> of >>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what. >> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed >> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no >> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form. >> >> ---JRE--- >> >> >> > Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of > different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the > truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them removed. > Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage. > few people know that... i'm impressed. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:13lat59kpldif26@corp.supernews.com... >> "My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote in message >> news:Vme5j.7711$o_6.2647@trnddc08... >> >>>> I suppose the one exception is the "all new" Camry for 2007. But then >>>> Ford had an all new Mustang in 2004, all new 500 in 2005, and all new >>>> Fusion in >>> Come on now Ed, the Mustang was all new for 2005. :-) >> You are correct. >> > > Whall, you see part of the problem is that most of the auto pundits out > there, > like the people that write the reviews in Car and Driver and such, have not > reconciled to the fact that a basic truck is extremely utilitaritian and > functional. > You can haul plywood, a motorcycle, a couch, move across town, you name > it. If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a > fairly > fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan > of > course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what. > > There's enough of the new car buying public that recognize this that light > and > mid sized trucks are always going to sell well in the US. > > Personally I can't stand the look of the things - any pickup truck after > 1955 > looks like a Mexican/white trailer trashmobile in my book - and I'll never > be > caught dead owning one. I do my hauling with a trailer. But I see the > point > that dealing with hauling out a utility trailer from the shed and linking it > up takes > a lot more time than just walking out to the street and tossing whatever > piece > of crap you need to haul into the truck bed then driving off. > > New car buyers generally either buy for image reasons (ie: Prius) or for > functionality. Trucks are extremely functional, it's no wonder they are as > popular as they are. Most of the auto pundits out there are so focused > on the image thing they have lost touch with the functionality end of it. > > Ted > > Image reasons in a prius? right |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"Picasso" <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in message news:475b30d7$0$5271$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net... > > > > Image reasons in a prius? > > right Apparently you missed the Prius commercial where the guy buys one to be able to get ed by the girl who regularly attends the "Save the Whales" conventions. There's all kinds of images out there. The Prius owners are no different than the 50 year accountants who run out and buy Harleys and black leather jackets with fringe. Just because both are equally silly doesen't mean they don't exist. Ted |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:00:55 -0400, Picasso <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of >> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the >> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them removed. >> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage. >> > >few people know that... i'm impressed. Best way to improve mileage when you own a pickup: sell the friggin thing unless you really _need_ a truck and buy a car instead. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:C37D942A.2AFCE%epmeyer50@msn.com... > > > > On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article > 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow" > <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote: > >> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message >> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net... >>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a >>> fairly >>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a >>> sedan >>> of >>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what. >> >> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed >> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no >> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form. >> >> ---JRE--- >> > Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of > different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the > truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them > removed. > Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage. It'd be interesting for them to do it with newer trucks, which are more aerodynamic than trucks from "several years ago". While pickups aren't really sold for their fuel efficiency, the better aerodynamics contribute to increased towing capacity and acceleration - things trucks are sold for. Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce less drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag usually means better mileage. In reality, it probably has more to do with speed than anything. At highway speeds, you're probably better off with the tailgate up so the vortex/slipstream can form. At slower speeds, it's less likely a vortex will form, so you're probably better off with the tailgate down. The point being that the OP's assertion that taking the tailgate off or putting a cover on would increase your mileage is more or less a myth. Speaking of, I'll see your CR and raise you a Mythbusters. :-) ---JRE--- |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
<NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote: >Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce less >drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel >tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the >vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag usually >means better mileage. You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense. |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:acrvl31bcq5fphdl5spnaci42ked6l0hqq@4ax.com... > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow" > <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote: > >>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce >>less >>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel >>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the >>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag >>usually >>means better mileage. > > You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some > difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce > less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of > view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but > from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense. > > Go check the back episodes of Mythbusters, they did an episode on that. Tailgate up produces less drag than tailgate down. They even did a miniature model test in water and used oatmeal flakes to show the pattern. Charles the Curmudgeon |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
still just me wrote:
> > You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some > difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce > less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of > view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but > from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense. Throw some tissue in the back and go for a ride. On many trucks, the tissues will move in a circular fashion, forward along the floor, up the front wall, backwards in mid-air, and back down to the floor. At the right speeds, the debris will continue around and around. I've seen it with cans, paper, leaves, etc... |
Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be
"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acrvl31bcq5fphdl5spnaci42ked6l0hqq@4ax.com... > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow" > <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote: > >>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce >>less >>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel >>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the >>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag >>usually >>means better mileage. > > You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some > difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce > less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of > view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but > from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense. Drive around in a pickup with a few dry leaves in the bed. Notice that, while some fly away, many blow upward behind the cab then fall back to the bed towards the back, even at highway speeds. The thing to remember is that the air caught by the tailgate has to go somewhere. Since it can't go upward due the additional air being caught by the tailgate, it goes down, then towards the front of the bed, then up the back of the cab and back into the bottom of the main airflow... where much of it is caught by the tailgate again. This is called a "locked vortex" and it essentially creates a differential pressure zone within the bed that the main airflow rides upon as it goes over the bed. ---JRE--- |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:49 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands