2014 GM trucks recalled. DON'T DRIVE!

[MinnesotaEric]

Yea those were good jokes.

Sounds like Ford need to put a heater in the oil pan that is active when the engines running and below normal operating temps. Warm oil will lube better, and everything would work as designed.

I'm not a hater of any brand, or design. I like that Ford is a leader in these kind of designs. Just like I'm glad Ram added their 3.0L diesel to the 1500 series. It's time to shake up the truck industry a bit. Personally got sick of seeing the new midsize truck offerings with a whopping 2 mpg advantage over a full size.
As was mentioned EVERY brand that has ever introduced a new design has issues to iron out. One thing most people never even try to consider is cars sold in the US undergo more extremes than cars sold in just about any country in the world. From 12,000ft altitudes, to below sea level temps of 120+ to hot 100+ dry weather and sub zero salt laden roads, and folks that seriously can be all from one month of driving around. Add to that we expect 250,000 miles out of it and the first 100,000 trouble free, and it's a tall order. Then throw the EPA crap on top of it all and it's a engineering challenge like no other.

No manufacturer can forsee all problems in all situations. Just be thankful it's not like cell phones. Ever get a buggy cell phone? Their solution is, "Down load the update. Oh that didn't work, well we have a new model out now that corrects that problem, it starts at $495 unless you want to renew your plan."

When these issues occur, the have to first understand WHY, before they can fix it. Once they do fix it, I'm sure something else will pop up. At least the tie rods aren't falling off cause some pot smoking dufus forgot to tighten them down. Not bashing GM's, I own one.

Back when I purchased my 2011, I complained that if anybody offered a diesel in a 1/2, I'd buy it.

But looking at the additional costs, I'd need to own a RAM diesel for over 100,000 miles before hitting break even.

 

[Pixguy]

I have a 2011 EB as well and am vey happy with it. I travel half hwy and have city and average over 19mpg. I don't tow a lot but when I do, it's great.

 

[Citydude]

I sold my 2012 Mustang 5.0 and bought my wife a Lincoln MKS for a career achievement gift. I still have the need for speed and this little baby delivers!

 

[two_bit_score]

Notice that Ford and Nissan did not take the money in order to be bailed out or continue as an on-going business concern.

No Ford built to this day has been built with money from the EPA $5.9B loan.

That said, do you hold equal distaste to the food industry because the entire food industry has been and continues to be subsidized with "tax dollar money"? In point of fact, do you loath eggs and bacon and milk and orange juice as you seem to loath Ford for taking a loan from the EPA? Does hatred of subsidies dull the flavor of grass-grown beef because the producers of such goods, at the least, never paid sales tax? Why is your focus on Ford willingness to try to develop new technologies for the greater good, a bad thing in your eyes, when there is no mistaking that your eggs and bacon have been partially subsidized by our "tax payer money" for the greater good of all US consumers?

You seem to be the one with a seething loathsomeness about all this.

The only issue I'm talking about is the factualness of the statement "Ford - Built without your tax dollars". None of the other noise you are trying to bring into the discussion to 'bail out' D) your pathetic case is at issue here with me. keep trying to throw something on the wall and maybe you'll get something to stick. You haven't so far.

 

[two_bit_score]

So, no Ford being built from the $5.9 billion? READ THIS...

Officially, official: Ford gets $5.9b from DOE in ATVMP funds for 13 greener cars

I guess Eric the Oracle confused3: what the heck) thinks that Ford is a cash flush solvent company instead of the near- belly up, debt laden, company that they are.

I don't take any happiness in that sad state of affairs either. I want all the US car manuf.'s to do well and thrive.

Wasn't that long ago, though, that you could buy about three or four shares of Ford common for the price of a cheap lunch but you couldn't trade three or four shares for a cheap lunch next week because most people would not take less than ten shares for a lunch that far in the future.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

I guess Eric the Oracle confused3: what the heck) thinks that Ford is a cash flush solvent company instead of the near- belly up, debt laden, company that they are.

I don't take any happiness in that sad state of affairs either. I want all the US car manuf.'s to do well and thrive.

Wasn't that long ago, though, that you could buy about three or four shares of Ford common for the price of a cheap lunch but you couldn't trade three or four shares for a cheap lunch next week because most people would not take less than ten shares for a lunch that far in the future.

Can you read a 10K financial statement?

I guess not. Because if you did, you'd see that Ford is in point of fact, very solvent. In fact, when the CEOS of the big three where called before Congress and asked if they'd be willing to take a pay cut for a bailout, Ford's CEO told Congress that Ford didn't need to be bailed out and he would not take a pay cut, that he was paid to do a job and was fine with his existing level of compensation (basically, he told them to piss off). What had Ford done to avoid bailouts? Ford shut down 17 plants, sold Rover, Volvo, Jaguar, and Aston Martin, streamlined Ford's product range, increase estimated build reliability to 150,000 miles, got the union to agree to more automation, thereby increasing quality, sold bonds to people like myself, and then bought those same bonds back early paying them off and retiring them.

Listen to Alan explain exactly what he did.

Ford didn't take a bailout. Instead Bill Ford replaced himself with a world class turn-around expert who did just that.

That said, if your mind is so blunted by bias to the point where you're unable or unwilling to distinguish the difference between a development loan and and an operational loan, or if you're so certain in your own thinking that new information is unable to move your view whatsoever, then I suggest you focus on increasing your mental acumen rather than making childish jabs at my user name.

 

[orezok]

If you don't take a "development" loan then you have to use operational cash for development! A loan of ANY kind allows you to reallocate your sparse operating cash.

 

[handirifle]

Back when I purchased my 2011, I complained that if anybody offered a diesel in a 1/2, I'd buy it.

But looking at the additional costs, I'd need to own a RAM diesel for over 100,000 miles before hitting break even.

Yea I bet that little Eco diesel will be around much longer than that 100k, and will in fact pay for itself. In fact I don't know of any vehicle I have ever bought where there ever was a break even point. The only possible one, is one I am still driving and that is our 2005 Honda Accord V6. Bought it new, has almost 200K on it and has been totally problem free. We have kept up on maint, big and small, and I am sure that has a lot to do with it. But the car still delivers 30 MPG, and is still very powerful and responsive, and still handles like when it was new. Were it not for the parking lot commandos and shopping carts it would still LOOK like new as well.

On the other end of the spectrum, I was pleased to hear Ford used a diesel block for a turbo'd engine. Too many times in the past makers have overestimated the strength of their lower ends when adding a turbo to their engine, ie the GM 3.8L turbos. We won't even get into the GM v8 auto diesels of the past. When they let the money crunchers take lead instead of the engineers, then parts fail.

We will be on the crossroads of buying another car probably in the next couple of years, and I am seriously considering a diesel for the car as well (truck IS a diesel) for the very high mileage, AND performance. M y neighbor has a Jetta TDI, and the reports I get from him are just like what I read online, 45+ MPG (usually 47 to 48) and very torquey, in fact once at freeway speeds, the things just about never NEED to downshift, and I am sure that is not a small part in the high MPG numbers.

If they are like my truck, I would be very pleased. Brought 5 adults in the truck the other day, coming up a 7% 3 mile long grade, with cruise set at 70 MPH, truck hit the bottom of the grade in 6th gear (6 spd Allison) and never down shifted once, just sat at 1700-1800 RPM the whole way. I LOVE that kind of torque, and I am sure the TDI would offer similar performance, for it's size.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

If you don't take a "development" loan then you have to use operational cash for development! A loan of ANY kind allows you to reallocate your sparse operating cash.

The EPA asked what it would take to be able meet 65mpg CAFE in 2030, and was told by the industry that the industry would not be able to hit that number without the development of new technology. Since the OEM's benefit from the development of new tech they were not given the money, but rather the EPA agreed to shoulder the development costs to pull forward (bring technology to market sooner than it would under normal market forces) future technology.

In other words, a profitable company may be putting money toward the development of future tech but more money would allow the technology to be developed faster and brought to market sooner, a good thing.

Understand?

 

[orezok]

So your saying that companies don't do development if not financed by Uncle Sam. I don't think so. They have to remain competitive and while they might not spend as much, it still saves operational dollars for other purposes.

It would appear that the government gave Ford an advantage that other makes didn't get.

Understand?