Ford Motor Company Did or Didnt take bailout money???

[MossRoad]

So a company has a downturn in business due to uncompetetive products, poor product developement, bad contracts with labor, etc... and we the people should give them a pass on all their debts and some cash so they can continue, because they are too big to fail? Its not logical.

 

[fordmantpw]

So a company has a downturn in business due to uncompetetive products, poor product developement, bad contracts with labor, etc... and we the people should give them a pass on all their debts and some cash so they can continue, because they are too big to fail? Its not logical.

Amen to that! Where is the incentive to not let it happen again?

 

[Diamondpilot]

So a company has a downturn in business due to uncompetetive products, poor product developement, bad contracts with labor, etc... and we the people should give them a pass on all their debts and some cash so they can continue, because they are too big to fail? Its not logical.

There, logically put. The fact is GM did this, no one did it for them.

I still disagree about the bailouts bringing the suppliers down. The company I worked for supplied parts to about every manufacture. My fathers company supplied 80 plus manufactures. Neither of us worried about our jobs but did have to make concessions.

Chris

 

[Diamondpilot]

Seems your displaying the height of hypocrisy Chris............so are you also saying all the 900 or so banks and other companies on the list of "bailouts" should of gone bankrupt too? ..........and are you dragging all their names thru the mud every chance you get with exaggerated claims of poor products and poor service or just a couple of them because they effected your large bank deposit? Ps I have to smile about your comment re GM not having engine development, meanwhile their latest 5.3 V8 technology has no problem beating similar size ecoboost Ford in gas mileage and respectable power without needing to resort to a troublesome turbo...and considering Ford's histroy of problems with turbos continues(eg 6 litre D a few years ago) ......those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Great technology. GM is so far behind they think they are actually in the lead.

I pat Ford and Dodge on the back for thinking outside the box. Naturally aspirated V8 motors will not cut it.

Get the HP and payload numbers on the Eco Diesel and Dodge will have a game changer but that's what the Cummins Nissan Titan will do!

Troublesome Turbos? Give me a break. Diesels, which I have owned 4 of, have used turbos that have never given me a second of trouble.

Chris

 

[roadhunter]

Now you are claiming turbocharged engines are just as reliable/dependable as naturally aspirated? Should have brought my waders today as it's getting pretty deep in here.

With more moving parts to fail and pushing the engine beyond what it is capable of if naturally aspirated it is obvious that there is more potential for failure in the turbocharged engine. Simply having the turbo bolted to the engine is one more item to fail that the naturally aspirated motor does not have. Myth busted.

 

[ruffdog]

Sounds like a guy I know that works for a large truck and auto parts supplier. If an auto manufacturer is buying from them, they are great. The ones that are going someplace else, are bad. Whhaaaa! :hissyfit:

 

[Diamondpilot]

Now you are claiming turbocharged engines are just as reliable/dependable as naturally aspirated? Should have brought my waders today as it's getting pretty deep in here. With more moving parts to fail and pushing the engine beyond what it is capable of if naturally aspirated it is obvious that there is more potential for failure in the turbocharged engine. Simply having the turbo bolted to the engine is one more item to fail that the naturally aspirated motor does not have. Myth busted.

Wow! I never said more moving parts did not have the potential to have more chance of failure. Read before you open your mouth. I said they have became very reliable.

You really are foolish if you don't believe these turbo motors of today are not built from the ground up with turbo charging in mind. It's not 1980 and it's been proven that simply bolting a turbo on is not a good idea.

Chris

 

[DarkBlack]

With more moving parts to fail and pushing the engine beyond what it is capable of if naturally aspirated it is obvious that there is more potential for failure in the turbocharged engine. Simply having the turbo bolted to the engine is one more item to fail that the naturally aspirated motor does not have. Myth busted.

That's not really true. A turbo only increases the air pressure, not much different than owning the same car at sea level vs in Denver.
As far as parts count: There's just about as many additional parts in the cylinder de-activation scheme of V-8s. And finally: Yes new engines with turbo's are designed to withstand the power they make.
I try not to bash a brand using their tech method as a pivot. The end/real results are what matter.

 

[ruffdog]

Gee, they seem to be having a problem with the 6.7L turbos now. It sure messes up them heads and pistons when impeller parts come through.

 

[DarkBlack]

There's problems with all engines