 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / May 2007Ford is nervous
Autoblog comments http://snipurl.com/1jdu5 Ford sold 55,000 F Series last month. GM sold 44,000 and 12,000 and Dodge sold 36,000. Why does Ford feel sooooo threatened by Toyota to routinely attack it? Tundra sales were 15,000 for April. Doesn't Ford know that the more it puts out commercials attacking a distant 4th place, the more credibility it gives the Tundra? I mean if the 2007 F150 is superior to the Tundra, then let the people decide. The only reason a number one attacks a number 4 is if they feel inferior. Also, Tundra can only wants to sell 200,000 this year. Ford, as the king of trucks, look at yourself and improve, not dis others. Unless you are afraid. ========== Never underestimate the competition, specially if it comes from the East. Ford did it when they had the sales king, aka Taurus http://snipurl.com/adios_Taurus and look what happened... ========== All Ford does is talk about others. Pathetic. They just whine. Invest in the 4.6 and 5.4 first rather than on commercials. I am a Chevy guy and I hope Silverado puts the F-series to pasture. ========== Dodge Ram for the young stud Chevy Silverado for the middleaged man GMC Sierra for the middleaged professional Ford F-Series = old man's truck Toyota Tundra for the educated and demanding person ========== Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 > Autoblog comments http://snipurl.com/1jdu5 > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ford, as the king of trucks, look at yourself and improve, not dis > others. Unless you are afraid. So then Toyota should stop their advertising? > ========== > Never underestimate the competition, specially if it comes from the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ========== > Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 I can't imagine two things: 1. a person watching commercials 2. a person basing a vehicle decision on safety ratings. what a bogus reason to buy a particular vehicle. So, I agree, ford is wasting their time and money aiming the commercials at safety ratings. After all, broadside either the f-150 OR the tyota with a semi and they're both going to be junk and the driver dead.  SignatureSteve Barker > Autoblog comments http://snipurl.com/1jdu5 > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > ========== > Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 > I can't imagine two things: > 1. a person watching commercials TiVO rules! <G> > TiVO rules! <G> isnt that the truth! i wouldnt watch tv without it. SignatureNathan In Montana http://ConcealedCarryForum.com http://1911Talk.com http://GlockCarry.com >Autoblog comments http://snipurl.com/1jdu5 > >Ford sold 55,000 F Series last month. GM sold 44,000 and 12,000 and >Dodge sold 36,000. Why does Ford feel sooooo threatened by Toyota to The ads are pathetic and I can't stand Ford or their products. Fords better ideas all suck just like their trucks... period. Triton engines are boat anchors, the v10 couldn't blow itself to hell if was cast in dynomite, and the 6.0 Navistar engine they've been putting in their trucks is a fuel injector eating pile of camel dungh. I hope Toyota kicks their sorry a.ses even if the Tundra is the ugliest truck on the market next to a Chevy. >routinely attack it? Tundra sales were 15,000 for April. Doesn't Ford >know that the more it puts out commercials attacking a distant 4th [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ford, as the king of trucks, look at yourself and improve, not dis Ford's running out of BETTER ideas. look at their latest and greatest.. the tailgate step with ultra cheezy grab handle for little people who can't step high enough to get into the bed. >others. Unless you are afraid. >========== [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >========== >Dodge Ram for the young stud Mine makes me look younger >Chevy Silverado for the middleaged man all come with free pair of blue pumps >GMC Sierra for the middleaged professional all come with a free pair of red pumps >Ford F-Series = old man's truck for the man who's underwear have a knots in the crotch >Toyota Tundra for the educated and demanding person educated? Tundra brake rotor $700.00. Sierra brake rotor $100.00 demand will come when it's parts replacement time and the parts are still floatings around the pacific on a barge. >========== >Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 Screw that nonsense, who cares about the competition when you've just been served a $2,000,000,000 lawsuit by the supplier of the engines that make your F250/F350 products the top sellers that they are. hmmm.... 2 billion lawsuit n one hand, Toyota competion on the other........ Anyone got a beer for these flames? SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Autoblog comments http://snipurl.com/1jdu5 > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > ========== > Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 They got no chance in hell of winning that law suit as the engines they sent Ford were a bunch of worthless paper weights that only hurt Fords reputation. Sorry to burst your bubble Max, but it was not that POS diesel engine that made Ford the top seller that it is like Cummins did to keep Dodge in the game at all. As for Toyota, I think that once again Dodge has far more to fear than Ford with the changes that they have made. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Screw that nonsense, who cares about the competition when you've just been > served a $2,000,000,000 lawsuit by the supplier of the engines that make [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > ========== > > Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 > They got no chance in hell of winning that law suit as the engines they > sent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > has > far more to fear than Ford with the changes that they have made. Sadly, you are misguided on this. Navistar is suing because of breach of contract, not because of anything else. When Ford bought the engines, they agreed to pay for them. Ford did not follow through on this properly. Second, the engines being junk is in question, as Navistar feels that Ford was at fault in the ECM problems. As such, we the public will have to wait and see what happens. Third, part of Navistars contention is that Ford knowingly broke the contract by designing a replacement diesel far ahead of schedule. This has been reported in several newspapers, along with info stating that Ford is planning to drop the Navistar engine at least two years ealier than the contract calls for. Second, the Diesel option in the F250/350 was in fact what made it a top contender. You may be mistaking the #1 status of the F150 as part of the heavy truck sales; it is not. Ford staked its sales on the PSD reputation, as built on the T444E. Sadly, the next generation failed to live up to the name. It was mentioned in several wire reports that Ford sales would be drastically affected because the majority of the F250/350 trucks were leaving the factory with the PSD. Thus, unless the lawsuits (there are more than one pending on this issue between those companies) fall totally Ford's direction, Ford will take a tremendous hit financially. As to Toyota, whenever a new product enters the market, typically the best seller takes the hit. In this case, the Toyota offering wouldn't make a dent in the heavy pickup market, since Toyota doesn't offer one. Secondly, the dent to the sales of the "big three" would not be in the billions of dollars, as the Navistar lawsuit might be. As such, when comparing the impact of the Tundra to Ford's finacial future, versus that of a $2billion lawsuit, I think the lawsuit has more potential impact, without question. Thus, I again say, Ford's worries aren't with Toyota, but with Navistar. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > They got no chance in hell of winning that law suit as the engines they > sent [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> > ========== >> > Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 > Sadly, you are misguided on this. Navistar is suing because of breach of > contract, not because of anything else. When Ford bought the engines, they > agreed to pay for them. Ford did not follow through on this properly. The whole situation is a big mess and interconnected. Ford claims that the reason they were witholding payments was because Navistar was in breach of *their* contractual obligation to absorb some of the warranty repair costs associated with the 6.0L engine. RCE > The whole situation is a big mess and interconnected. Ford claims that > the reason they were witholding payments was because Navistar was in > breach of *their* contractual obligation to absorb some of the warranty > repair costs associated with the 6.0L engine. Precisely. Thus, the claim that Navistar has nothing and the suit will fall apart is a bit short sighted. If it were that easy to come to a decision, certainly Navistar and its lawyers would not have filed papers to begin with. What signifies this action as solidly based and a huge threat to Ford is the dollar amount. A supplier such as Navistar doesn't "bite the hand that feeds it" simply because it seems like the "thing to do". Navistar's reputation and financial status may well be on the line here, and they undoubtedly feel its worth taking action. The real point is, Ford is on shakey ground to begin with, now a $2b lawsuit will at very least sap their cash reserves, let alone the effects of an adverse judgement. Next point is, Toyota isn't the threat to domestic truck sales that was foreseen, mostly because of the recent jump in fuel costs. However, Toyota has a habit of aiming at the top. Currently, the top 1/2 ton pickup is the F150. So far, Toyota hasn't put a serious dent in those sales. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> Sadly, you are misguided on this. Navistar is suing because of breach of >> contract, not because of anything else. When Ford bought the engines, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > RCE >> The whole situation is a big mess and interconnected. Ford claims that >> the reason they were witholding payments was because Navistar was in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > lawsuit will at very least sap their cash reserves, let alone the effects > of an adverse judgement. I think the $2B "lawsuit" is nothing more than to catch Ford's attention and attempt to force Ford to honor existing engine contracts. From what I've read, it is based on Navistar's opinion that Ford is moving forward with plans to design and build their own diesel engine rather than continue to purchase them from Navistar. Apparently there is a contract clause that prohibits Ford from doing so until after 2012. It will get tanglefooted because I am sure that Ford, being solely dependent on Navistar, insisted on having certain performance related obligations imposed on Navistar as well. Eisboch > I think the $2B "lawsuit" is nothing more than to catch Ford's attention > and attempt to force Ford to honor existing engine contracts. From what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Navistar, insisted on having certain performance related obligations > imposed on Navistar as well. Certainly its an attention-getter. But in the corporate world, "frivolous lawsuits" aren't the method of operation. Clearly (again) Navistar feels its got good ground to stand on for the dollar figure. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> The whole situation is a big mess and interconnected. Ford claims that >>> the reason they were witholding payments was because Navistar was in [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Eisboch >Certainly its an attention-getter. But in the corporate world, "frivolous >lawsuits" aren't the method of operation. Clearly (again) Navistar feels its >got good ground to stand on for the dollar figure. I am not sure who is in the right here. IH used to make some of the finest deisels out there and the 7.3 was great motor but the 6.0 caused Ford a lot of grief and tarnished their reputation. They both have issues that are going to take some time to sort out in court and in the mean time Ford saves so working cash while this is being resolved. The 6.0 should have never been made I think. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com I went to IH training school last summer. they claimed then that the 6.0 is being phazed out for the problems they have had with it. they also said they would be replacing the 6.0 with a V6 diesel which they have been stuffing under the cab of those new cabovers they're building and also rebaging for Ford. >>Certainly its an attention-getter. But in the corporate world, "frivolous >>lawsuits" aren't the method of operation. Clearly (again) Navistar feels its >>got good ground to stand on for the dollar figure. > >I am not sure who is in the right here. IH used to make some of the >finest deisels out there and the 7.3 was great motor but the 6.0 the only engine IH EVER made that was worth its grit was the DT466 and DT530. The DT570 just recently came out and wasn't without its own share of problems. I've relplaced dozens of egr coolers on them. The 6.9 was a boat anchor and the 7.3 wasn't much better except it has a turbo. All V configuration diesels are JUNK... take note of the fact that over the road big trucks use inline engines and not V8s. >caused Ford a lot of grief and tarnished their reputation. They both a little over two years ago I was employed by Ford, then they sold the truck leasing division I was employed with and left all of us high and dry and sold out to another truck leasing company. My retirement funds went out the window with the sale of the leasing company. I hope Ford motors falls off the face of the planet and is buried under a heap of its own overrated cheap a.s trucks. >have issues that are going to take some time to sort out in court and >in the mean time Ford saves so working cash while this is being >resolved. The 6.0 should have never been made I think. the 6.0 is an injector eating boat mooring. >----------------- >TheSnoMan.com > All V configuration diesels are JUNK... take note of the fact that > over the road big trucks use inline engines and not V8s. That would be a incorrect statement imo. Perhaps in the truck/automotive application there have been a few problem. The V design on diesels has been used many years with success. >> All V configuration diesels are JUNK... take note of the fact that >> over the road big trucks use inline engines and not V8s. > >That would be a incorrect statement imo. Perhaps in the truck/automotive >application there have been a few problem. The V design on diesels has been >used many years with success. 6.5 Gm.. junk. 6.9 Navi/Ford.. junk. 7.3 Navi/Ford a better engine but still overrated in its function.. carry a few spare cans of starting fluid for those cold months.. they're cantancuous by their own nature for having to rely on glowplugs. The Duramax (not to be confused with the inline 6 Isuzu engine now being called a Duramax in GM medium duty trucks) is proving that it also has an appetite for glowplugs and has been cursed with overheating problems. I don't know enough about the Duramax to make all that many comments about it except for experience of a few friends and my brothers oldest son who owned a GMC that GMC brought back from him after his Duramax decided to suck the tips out of the glowplugs. The 6.5 Chevy/Gmc was the biggest POS of them all and nothing more than a converted Olds Even in its latest form and after GM convinced the public that it was a diesel from the ground up. they still plugged the distributor hole with a leaky rubber plug and never removed the casting for the fuel pump mount... its another part of dismal automotive history right up there with the Vega and Corvair. Personally, if I had the need for a pickup powered with a diesel, and the option, I'd go with an inline 6 Cat powered pickup. NOTHING runs like a Cat. the 3208 Cat.. JUNK. > Personally, if I had the need for a pickup powered with a diesel, and > the option, I'd go with an inline 6 Cat powered pickup. NOTHING runs > like a Cat. Except a Cummins. Sad part is, Cat doesn't have an inline six small enough to fit a pickup. The GM 6.2/6.5 was a new diesel, and was not a reworked Olds casting. The Olds casting was capable of 5.7l/350cid. Despite this, the 6.2/6.5 was junk, having massive head problems. The 7.3/T444 Navistar was actually a decent engine, but not on the level of Cat or Cummins, or even the DT466. The Duramax 6.6 V8 has aluminum heads, which should be a major factor in deciding against buying it. The Cat 3208 has long been noted as a disposable diesel. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> All V configuration diesels are JUNK... take note of the fact that >>> over the road big trucks use inline engines and not V8s. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption > =---- Gentlemen, I am happily subscribed to the Chevy truck groups. I care not a wit what Ford, Dodge, or Toyota did or does with or to their trucks. Please refrain from cross-posting to the Chevy Truck groups. Thanks Regards, JR >> I think the $2B "lawsuit" is nothing more than to catch Ford's attention >> and attempt to force Ford to honor existing engine contracts. From what [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> >> Eisboch Then my suggestion would be not to read it or are you the new use net nanny? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Gentlemen, > I am happily subscribed to the Chevy truck groups. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >> > >> Eisboch <snip> >>> Ford, being solely dependent on Navistar, insisted on having certain >>> performance related obligations imposed on Navistar as well. > I am happily subscribed to the Chevy truck groups. I care not a wit what > Ford, Dodge, or Toyota did or does with or to their trucks. > Please refrain from cross-posting to the Chevy Truck groups. > Thanks > Regards, > JR ...then don't read posts with the term, "ford is nervous." Oh, and please stop top posting. Though you may be using an inferior newsreader on an inferior operating system, you can at least attempt to be polite and bottom post. One more thing - two dashes with a space afterwards will work better than a commma for allowing newsreaders - even in Wintendo - to strip your signature properly. HTH! HAND Signaturek I don't read the posts with the term "Ford is nervous". However I do have to mark them as read or delete them to make them disappear. As a self appointed sophisticate of Usenet, you should well know that top or bottom posting is up to the individual. There is no convention, only preference. Regards coma JR > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > HAND >I don't read the posts with the term "Ford is nervous". But... you had to read it to reply to it here........ > However I do have to mark them as read or delete them to make them > disappear. Always amazes me how f.cking lazy people get...... to the point of complaining that an index finger tapping a button lightly a couple of times is an effort worth whining to the vast masses in a manner that rivals that of Paris Hilton complaining about jail time. Perhaps that is just a flaw of mine... being born prior to the popularity of microwave ovens, let alone the internet. If it takes only a finger's worth of effort..... Shut the f.ck up and do it!!! SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >I don't read the posts with the term "Ford is nervous". > However I do have to mark them as read or delete them to make them [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> HAND >>I don't read the posts with the term "Ford is nervous". > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Shut the f.ck up and do it!!! Seriously. If you have a decent NR (Pan, XNews, 40-Tude, Thunderbird, KNode...) you can configure the group to auto-mark as read when exiting. Signaturek > I don't read the posts with the term "Ford is nervous". > However I do have to mark them as read or delete them to make them > disappear. Each post needs it? I can mark a thread "Ignore Thread" and it's done. > As a self appointed sophisticate of Usenet, you should well know that top or > bottom posting is up to the individual. > There is no convention, only preference. See "2.3 Why should I place my response below the quoted text?" http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html SignatureMake friends with a few animals. Then you will become a cheerful man once more and nothing will be able to trouble you. -- Albert Einstein > Gentlemen, > I am happily subscribed to the Chevy truck groups. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Regards, > JR Sorry about that. As one who also is occasionally annoyed by crossposting, I should know better. I simply didn't read the headers. Eisboch Thank you Eisboch. >> Gentlemen, >> I am happily subscribed to the Chevy truck groups. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Eisboch Sir, Please refrain from opening posts and threads you care not a wit about, it makes your life easier. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > Gentlemen, > I am happily subscribed to the Chevy truck groups. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>> >>> Eisboch > > The whole situation is a big mess and interconnected. Ford claims that > > the reason they were witholding payments was because Navistar was in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Precisely. Thus, the claim that Navistar has nothing and the suit will fall > apart is a bit short sighted. Not really. > If it were that easy to come to a decision, > certainly Navistar and its lawyers would not have filed papers to begin > with. Sure they would have. If they didn't, they would basically be admitting that they were supplying Ford with a defective engine and that would damage their reputation even worse then it already is. You can't put a price on that. > What signifies this action as solidly based and a huge threat to Ford > is the dollar amount. Now you are assuming that even if they win that they would get the full dollar amount. Ford will not worry about this until they lose and all of their appeals are done. > A supplier such as Navistar doesn't "bite the hand > that feeds it" simply because it seems like the "thing to do". Hahahahaha, now that was funny. This kind of thing happens all of the time. Perhaps you should read some of the financial papers every now and then. > Navistar's reputation and financial status may well be on the line here, and they > undoubtedly feel its worth taking action. Thank you for supporting my prior point. Navistar is suing for their reputation, especially since they already lost one when they stopped supplying engines and were forced to resume. > The real point is, Ford is on shakey ground to begin with, now a $2b lawsuit > will at very least sap their cash reserves, let alone the effects of an > adverse judgment. How will an adverse judgment hurt Ford besides the money? > Next point is, Toyota isn't the threat to domestic truck sales that was > foreseen, mostly because of the recent jump in fuel costs. However, Toyota > has a habit of aiming at the top. Currently, the top 1/2 ton pickup is the > F150. So far, Toyota hasn't put a serious dent in those sales. And that is the key word, "so far". SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> If it were that easy to come to a decision, >> certainly Navistar and its lawyers would not have filed papers to begin [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their reputation even worse then it already is. You can't put a price on > that. As I understand the situation, the vast majority of the 6.0L problems have nothing to do with Navistar's basic engine. It's the Ford specified modifications, including the variable vane turbo that is crashing. The Navistar version of the engine has been around for a while and is a "non-event" engine, meaning no significant problems. Eisboch >As I understand the situation, the vast majority of the 6.0L problems have >nothing to do with Navistar's basic engine. It's the Ford specified >modifications, including the variable vane turbo that is crashing. The bigger problem is injector troubles, they leak and dilute the crankcase oil. There has been a lot of blown engines over this. I heard of one blown form this when it was 3 weeks old. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > >> If it were that easy to come to a decision, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nothing to do with Navistar's basic engine. It's the Ford specified > modifications, including the variable vane turbo that is crashing. Unless Navistar can prove that Ford went outside of their specifications for the engine, they don't have much of a case. Also, if Navistar built the engine to Fords specs, then they really don't have a leg to stand on. As for the turbo's, who supplied them? > The Navistar version of the engine has been around for a while and is a > "non-event" engine, meaning no significant problems. If this is the engine that International was using on the vehicles that they sold to Chemlawn a few years ago, then you are sadly mistakes as these engines were pure crap. > Eisboch >Unless Navistar can prove that Ford went outside of their specifications for >the engine, they don't have much of a case. I do know that Ford raise the standard for the acceptable level of fuel in oil from the industry standard of about 2% to about 9% on the 6.0 because of leaky injectors. I do not know if this was Fords or Internationals idea ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>> If it were that easy to come to a decision, >>> certainly Navistar and its lawyers would not have filed papers to begin [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >nothing to do with Navistar's basic engine. It's the Ford specified >modifications, including the variable vane turbo that is crashing. Ford may have made some adjustments to the software or hardware that controls the vgt. jacking around with only effects the performance of the engine. The variable geometry part of the turbo isn't all THAT complicated since all they are doing is varing the amount of boost it can supply to the intake so it doesn't overcome the flow of exhaust from the egr side. it's no more complicated than opening or closing the vents on your dashboard to restrict the flow of air out of them. I've seen these engines come into my shop for a routine service, and leave the shop misfiring. bad injectors have been a chronic problem with the engine. >The Navistar version of the engine has been around for a while and is a >"non-event" engine, meaning no significant problems. the engine started showing up in Fords almost as fast as they cooled off the first block casting for the first engines. >Eisboch >> The whole situation is a big mess and interconnected. Ford claims that >> the reason they were witholding payments was because Navistar was in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > pickup is the F150. So far, Toyota hasn't put a serious dent in those > sales. You know, I wouldn't be suprised if Toyota hasn't been talking to Navistar hoping to get them to place either the 6.4 or a newer engine in the Tundra if they break off with Ford. Signaturek > You know, I wouldn't be suprised if Toyota hasn't been talking to > Navistar hoping to get them to place either the 6.4 or a newer engine in > the Tundra if they break off with Ford. That would make sense for a number of reasons. Only argument against that would be the fact that Isuzu is the worlds leader in automotive diesels. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >>> The whole situation is a big mess and interconnected. Ford claims that >>> the reason they were witholding payments was because Navistar was in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Navistar hoping to get them to place either the 6.4 or a newer engine in > the Tundra if they break off with Ford. >> You know, I wouldn't be suprised if Toyota hasn't been talking to >> Navistar hoping to get them to place either the 6.4 or a newer engine [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that would be the fact that Isuzu is the worlds leader in automotive > diesels. Well, don't they use Duramax diesel? If toyota were to work with them, It would be like some other automakers utilizing Toyota's hybrid system.... ..oh, wait... > > They got no chance in hell of winning that law suit as the engines they > > sent [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sadly, you are misguided on this. Navistar is suing because of breach of > contract, not because of anything else. I am well aware of what they are suing for. The question is, who actually breached the contract. >When Ford bought the engines, they > agreed to pay for them. Ford did not follow through on this properly. And when Navistar signed the contract, they agreed to provide reliable engines to Ford and they also appear not to have done so. > Second, the engines being junk is in question, as Navistar feels that Ford > was at fault in the ECM problems. As such, we the public will have to wait > and see what happens. Unless Navistar can somehow prove this and I doubt that they can, Ford still has a good case. AFAIK, Ford didn't stop paying untill Navistar stopped fixing them. > Third, part of Navistars contention is that Ford > knowingly broke the contract by designing a replacement diesel far ahead of > schedule. I doubt very much that Ford was restricted on when it could begin design of a new engine, only on implementation on specific vehicles. As for replacement, Ford could simply claim that they were looking to replace them ahead of schedule due to the excessive failure rates of the Navistar engines and the damage it was causing to sales and their reputation. > This has been reported in several newspapers, along with info > stating that Ford is planning to drop the Navistar engine at least two years > ealier than the contract calls for. And with the excessive failure rate, could you blame them? Navistar would have to prove that their engines were everything that they promised and as said before, I doubt that they can. > Second, the Diesel option in the F250/350 was in fact what made it a top > contender. While a diesel option helped to make them a top contender, it was not the Navistar name, just the engine type along with the strength and durability of the vehicles for the price. If it was just the engine, then Dodge should be No 1 by a wide margine as the Cummins is simply better than the rest so far and again, by a wide margine. >You may be mistaking the #1 status of the F150 as part of the > heavy truck sales; it is not. I never said that it was and we are talking about two totally different things now. The F150 is a completely different truck from the SuperDuty series. > Ford staked its sales on the PSD reputation, > as built on the T444E. I agree that Ford has staked some of its sales on the PSD but it takes more than just an engine to get the sales or as I said before, Dodge would be #1 in the medium duty P/U's. > Sadly, the next generation failed to live up to the > name. LOL, understatement of the year. > It was mentioned in several wire reports that Ford sales would be > drastically affected because the majority of the F250/350 trucks were > leaving the factory with the PSD. Sure it would and that is the reason that Ford is looking to remove them 2 years ahead of schedule but again, while the engine can stop sales if it is a POS or thought of as one, it takes more than just a good engine to get them. > Thus, unless the lawsuits (there are more than one pending on this issue > between those companies) fall totally Ford's direction, Ford will take a > tremendous hit financially. I doubt it. They will just appeal it as will Navistar and this will go on for years. > As to Toyota, whenever a new product enters the market, typically the best > seller takes the hit. Actually, the biggest tends to take the largest hit but not always, especially with vehicles and brand loyalty. > In this case, the Toyota offering wouldn't make a dent > in the heavy pickup market, since Toyota doesn't offer one. Not yet but as we have seen, Toyota looks toward the future unlike the American ones. If there is money to be made there, that is where they will go. > Secondly, the dent to the sales of the "big three" would not be in the billions of > dollars, as the Navistar lawsuit might be. Don't bet on that. Even if Navistar happens to win, it is a one shot deal and then it's over, not to mention the appeals that could drag it out for years. Every truck that Toyota happens to sell is a loss for one of the "big three" and since most of their profits come from their truck and SUV sales, it is more significant than you might imagine. Then in order to reclaim those sales they have to do research to see why they lost them to Toyota, possibly make design changes to re-attract those customers and at a minimum wage an advertising war to show how they are better than Toyota. When you add all this up, the cost are huge and well exceed just the cost of the sale and this happens every year. Of course, Toyota will see this and do the same thing so on it goes. BTW, you might want to use a different term than the "big three" since IIRC, Toyota is now #2 and soon to be #1 if not there already. > As such, when comparing the impact of the Tundra to Ford's finacial future, > versus that of a $2billion lawsuit, I think the lawsuit has more potential > impact, without question. Then you would be mistaken. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >> > ========== > >> > Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 > I am well aware of what they are suing for. The question is, who actually > breached the contract. If there is a question, as you state, then its not as cut and dried as you previously claimed. >>When Ford bought the engines, they >> agreed to pay for them. Ford did not follow through on this properly. > > And when Navistar signed the contract, they agreed to provide reliable > engines to Ford and they also appear not to have done so. Exactly, so its not like you claimed at all in your previous post. > Unless Navistar can somehow prove this and I doubt that they can, Ford > still > has a good case. AFAIK, Ford didn't stop paying untill Navistar stopped > fixing them. Navistar certainly should be able to prove it, given that they likely had a Ford on site to figure out the warranty problems. > I doubt very much that Ford was restricted on when it could begin design > of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > engines > and the damage it was causing to sales and their reputation. Navistar seems to feel that Ford was restricted in its timetable. I'm certain Ford will claim exactly what you say. However, if the contract contains a clause prohibiting engine development, then its open to interpretation. > And with the excessive failure rate, could you blame them? Navistar would > have to prove that their engines were everything that they promised and as > said before, I doubt that they can. Not at all. Ford certainly will do what it feels it has to in order to protect itself. Problem is, what will the contract dictate? As to Navistar, they must have something, or the dollar figure wouldn't be that high. > While a diesel option helped to make them a top contender, it was not the > Navistar name, just the engine type along with the strength and durability > of the vehicles for the price. If it was just the engine, then Dodge > should > be No 1 by a wide margine as the Cummins is simply better than the rest so > far and again, by a wide margine. Navistar's name is all over the thing, so Navistar has a vested interest in keeping their name clear. The name is long recognized as big in the heavy equipment sector. As such, Ford's rep isn't the only thing that made the F250/350 a popular product. >> Ford staked its sales on the PSD reputation, >> as built on the T444E. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > #1 > in the medium duty P/U's. Much as you and I know it, many people prefer a V8, or simply don't know enough, to know which engine is better. > Sure it would and that is the reason that Ford is looking to remove them 2 > years ahead of schedule but again, while the engine can stop sales if it > is > a POS or thought of as one, it takes more than just a good engine to get > them. Right..... hence the lawsuit by Navistar, since they depend on their name and rep to promote engines, not just trucks. > I doubt it. They will just appeal it as will Navistar and this will go on > for years. Exactly.... all the while taking a hit on the legal fees until its settled. > Not yet but as we have seen, Toyota looks toward the future unlike the > American ones. If there is money to be made there, that is where they > will > go. Last I heard, Toyota wasn't yet covering their investment on the new plant in Texas. > Don't bet on that. Even if Navistar happens to win, it is a one shot deal > and then it's over, not to mention the appeals that could drag it out for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > if > not there already. What you aren't seeing is that a company can scale back on expenditure to accomodate a market shift. In a direct loss, such as the lawsuit would bring, its a drain without any means to compensate for the loss. >> As such, when comparing the impact of the Tundra to Ford's finacial > future, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Then you would be mistaken. See above. Market shift and legal loss are totally different in the type of loss incurred. SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >> > They got no chance in hell of winning that law suit as the engines they >> > sent [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] >> soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." >> -Ed Howdershelt (Author) You sure spend a lot of time worrying about what Ford does in relation to Toyota. > You sure spend a lot of time worrying about what Ford does in relation to > Toyota. Trolls do that, and they cross post to as many groups as they think they can get away with just to stir up sh.t. >> You sure spend a lot of time worrying about what Ford does in relation to >> Toyota. > > Trolls do that, and they cross post to as many groups as they think they > can get away with just to stir up sh.t. Kinda like what you just did? The OP is a known pia, why people respond to his post's..... >>> You sure spend a lot of time worrying about what Ford does in relation >>> to Toyota. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Kinda like what you just did? The OP is a known pia, why people respond to > his post's..... With no idea what group you are posting from, I just took a shot in the dark. Personally, I think I will remain in alt.auto.toyota.trucks Have a nice day I can't believe GM sold 44,000 F series trucks! This sounds quite bogus. GM does not sell F series. Nor does Dodge or Toyota. Ford is not nervous about another mfgr selling more Ford trucks than Ford does. What is this thread doing here anyhow? > Ford sold 55,000 F Series last month. GM sold 44,000 and 12,000 and > Dodge sold 36,000. Why does Ford feel sooooo threatened by Toyota to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > ========== > Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 >I can't believe GM sold 44,000 F series trucks! This sounds quite bogus. >GM does not sell F series. > Nor does Dodge or Toyota. Ford is not nervous about another mfgr selling > more Ford trucks than Ford does. > What is this thread doing here anyhow? Making people like you ask facetious questions? SignatureMax Join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) >I can't believe GM sold 44,000 F series trucks! This sounds quite bogus. >GM does not sell F series. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> ========== >> Rising Sun: http://snipurl.com/1jdu0 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.