[MLL67RSSS]

Originally Posted by DaBears

Ford restructured it's debt among other things to avoid having to beg for help. So you tell me who is being more ethical here?

Yes, Ford had just lost 15 BILLION the previous 2 years and saw the economic storm was coming and had a BIG fire sale. Sold off Jaguar and Land Rover for 2.3 billion (about half what they paid), liquidated most of their Mazda holdings, sold off Volvo, etc. Basically strip mined the company of anything worth anything to "focus on the Ford brand." Had they not been in the position to sell all that off at some big losses they'd have needed a bailout as well. Heck Ford even sold the Ford blue oval for 1.5 billion but obtained rights to still use it of course.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/bu...6cnd-auto.html

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/fo...res-26573.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...ar-tata-motors

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...either-do-you/

[scrming]

You know... I could handle the bailouts... Because we aren't talking just the Auto companies but all the suppliers, etc... But what really upset me the most was this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77I0Z820110819

[Long Carbine]

Originally Posted by coloeb

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/...ain47539.shtml

There were internal memo's disclosed that show ford knew this exsisted and said " its cheaper to deal with the lawsuits , than deal with a recall "

Bull crap. You wouldn't buy one anyway.

1965

[Long Carbine]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

Yes, Ford had just lost 15 BILLION the previous 2 years and saw the economic storm was coming and had a BIG fire sale. Sold off Jaguar and Land Rover for 2.3 billion (about half what they paid), liquidated most of their Mazda holdings, sold off Volvo, etc. Basically strip mined the company of anything worth anything to "focus on the Ford brand." Had they not been in the position to sell all that off at some big losses they'd have needed a bailout as well. Heck Ford even sold the Ford blue oval for 1.5 billion but obtained rights to still use it of course.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/bu...6cnd-auto.html

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/fo...res-26573.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...ar-tata-motors

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...either-do-you/

What's that got to do with the price of broiled cat in Malaysia?

They didn't rip off stock holders like Barack Obama did and shut down 100's of dealerships and shutdown 14 plants and laid off 10k workers like Obama and GM did.

Librools like to thump their chest to the fact GM is selling the most cars. GM has always sold the most cars. Toyota outsold them a few months. Even when GM went backrupt. GM was not making any money off the cars they sold because of labor cost and pensions, none of which they addressed and will eventually take them down again.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by Coyotekiller

Actually Ford didn't beg fr government money because they had already begged most of the automobile industry to support them financially. They owed money to lots of the automotive and technological industry, like Microsoft among others. That's why they now have Microsoft systems interlinked with their radios.

Where did you get that from? Ford leveraged the company's assets as collateral for billions in loans in 2006. Can you show me a reputable source suggesting Microsoft made loans to Ford and that resulted in Sync? Can you show which companies within the auto industry Ford, "begged" to loan them money?

Ford mortgaged all of their assets to increase liquidity moving into a dark period for the global economy. Ford recognized the need to increase cash reserves to survive and restructure for success and it worked incredibly well. GM took out loans as well, at one point borrowing against Saturn, and burned through all of it to go into government sponsored bankruptcy and lose billions of taxpayer dollars.

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

Yes, Ford had just lost 15 BILLION the previous 2 years and saw the economic storm was coming and had a BIG fire sale. Sold off Jaguar and Land Rover for 2.3 billion (about half what they paid), liquidated most of their Mazda holdings, sold off Volvo, etc. Basically strip mined the company of anything worth anything to "focus on the Ford brand." Had they not been in the position to sell all that off at some big losses they'd have needed a bailout as well. Heck Ford even sold the Ford blue oval for 1.5 billion but obtained rights to still use it of course.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/bu...6cnd-auto.html

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/fo...res-26573.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...ar-tata-motors

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...either-do-you/

They didn't sell Mazda and Volvo until 2010, two years after the crisis and well into profitable quarters for Ford. Ford actually posted a $100 Million profit Q1 2008.

[Coyotekiller]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

Where did you get that from? Ford leveraged the company's assets as collateral for billions in loans in 2006. Can you show me a reputable source suggesting Microsoft made loans to Ford and that resulted in Sync? Can you show which companies within the auto industry Ford, "begged" to loan them money?

Ford mortgaged all of their assets to increase liquidity moving into a dark period for the global economy. Ford recognized the need to increase cash reserves to survive and restructure for success and it worked incredibly well. GM took out loans as well, at one point borrowing against Saturn, and burned through all of it to go into government sponsored bankruptcy and lose billions of taxpayer dollars.

Not sure where I got it from but I'm sure I read it somewhere...

Not that it matters. I still think Ford is a slime ball of a company. Not that any of the other auto manufacturers are any better.

[Number 3]

First, no car made in the past meets current safety, emissions or even customer requirements. It's just how technology works. So your 2002 Camaro is not compliant with the current standards for crashworthiness or emissions. The standards progress with technologies ability to deliver.

There are simply technologies and knowledge that didn't exist back then.

Does anyone remember when seat belts were required? Airbags? Not when they were available, but required.

Time marches on as does technology. 5 years is a moon shot for electronics. But even 5 years for emissions and safety are giant steps.

[scrming]

Originally Posted by Number 3

First, no car made in the past meets current safety, emissions or even customer requirements. It's just how technology works. So your 2002 Camaro is not compliant with the current standards for crashworthiness or emissions. The standards progress with technologies ability to deliver.

There are simply technologies and knowledge that didn't exist back then.

Does anyone remember when seat belts were required? Airbags? Not when they were available, but required.

Time marches on as does technology. 5 years is a moon shot for electronics. But even 5 years for emissions and safety are giant steps.

and to illustrate that...

[KXRM]

Originally Posted by scrming

and to illustrate that...

Couldn't have said it better. The entire passenger cabin just collapses on the old car.

[Apex Motorsports]

Originally Posted by DaBears

Yanno what else is not ethical? Nearly going out of business due to piss poor management and piss poor products like the Aztek and then crawling to the Government's door and asking for a handout like a poor man on a chicago side street.

Ford restructured it's debt among other things to avoid having to beg for help. So you tell me who is being more ethical here?

I love GM and current GM products, but when people act like one company is head and shoulders better than the other, they are flat out wrong.

Please remember that 99% of the people running these companies would take a dump on your chest if it meant a higher bonus for them or higher stock value.

They are all a**holes. The cars themselves are awesome.

My comment wasn't meant as a swipe at Ford. I am not a brand humper like a lot of folks in automotive forums, I am a business owner so when we start talking business my comments are coming from a different place.

[formare]

What the f$$$ you mean the 66 mustang didn't have airbags? Next thing you'll post up is the car didn't even have shoulder restraints!

Oh, Hey wait a minute....

Self government cannot work with self rule. If you buy a 40 year old car and you wanna feel safe then YOU make the dang thing safe. Don't expect someone from somewhere to come out of the wood work and wave a wand and make everything prefect.

I can tale ya nothing that is 40 years old rides like it did when it was 17. you gotta put some work into it just to keep it looking mostly good.

[Kiss My SS]

Originally Posted by Coyotekiller

Not sure where I got it from but I'm sure I read it somewhere...

Not that it matters. I still think Ford is a slime ball of a company. Not that any of the other auto manufacturers are any better.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...22365.html?l=1

At least FORD isnt owned by the Unions.

[Kiss My SS]

Originally Posted by MLL67RSSS

Yes, Ford had just lost 15 BILLION the previous 2 years and saw the economic storm was coming and had a BIG fire sale. Sold off Jaguar and Land Rover for 2.3 billion (about half what they paid), liquidated most of their Mazda holdings, sold off Volvo, etc. Basically strip mined the company of anything worth anything to "focus on the Ford brand." Had they not been in the position to sell all that off at some big losses they'd have needed a bailout as well. Heck Ford even sold the Ford blue oval for 1.5 billion but obtained rights to still use it of course.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/bu...6cnd-auto.html

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/fo...res-26573.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...ar-tata-motors

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...either-do-you/

Your last link about the blue oval is wrong.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/05/...l-out-of-hock/