Excuse me?

The 500 is a Chrysler clone.

I don't think so.

2006 Ford 500:
[image|http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:5ONrOKIec9VdEM:http://designpurity.com/img/cars/ford.500.side.jpg|0|Ford 500 Side view|89|120]

1999 VW Passat:
[image|http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:jDZHggh9_Mw8BM:http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/longterm/vw.passat/99.vw.passat.ltu.july.500.jpg|0|1999 VW Passat|82|130]

Ford scaled up the late 1990s VW Passat to make the 500. It's a fine looking car, and having 4WD as an option is nice, but it's about 5 years too late to market.

Like most US companies, Ford (and GM and Chrysler) rode the SUV wave too long and didn't invest in efficient car production. Toyota and Honda are eating away at their market share and continuning to turn over product cycles faster than the big 3. Korean makers are eating the low end and it's only going to get more and more difficult to make money as over-capacity problems continue to get worse.

Most of Henry's stock ended up at the Ford Foundation, which diversified over the years. I don't know if more draconian inheritance taxes would have changed much for them (since the taxes were in place at the time).

The TAC story is interesting, and it is a possible future for Ford. But I doubt it'll go that way. US auto prodution may dry up, or continue to shrink, but I don't think Ford is going to get out of that business worldwide any time soon. Ford still has lots of advantages that Sudebaker didn't. And Ford has been in similar dire straits before, as Halberstam covered in [link|http://www.amazon.com/Reckoning-David-Halberstam/dp/0380721473/sr=8-1/qid=1162656393/ref=sr_1_1/103-9749923-9889413?ie=UTF8&s=books|The Reckoning].

My guess is that the Big 3 and their important suppliers will eventually dump their pensions on the [link|http://www.pbgc.gov/|PBGC] and the unions will be forced to accept much lower wages and benefits. It's hard to see them producing cars at a profit any other way. Along with those changes, I expect the big 3 to shrink from eleventy-seven divisions and brands to less than a handful (Toyota gets by in the US with 3 and Honda 2) and that production lines will be eventually be much more flexible.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #272,170 by bepatient 11/4/06 10:44:20 AM Reply	Excuse me? Co that through 3 generations (and millions of stockholders) has employed hundreds of thousands...likely millions, has financially supported millions more through retirement years. You would have wiped that out in 1947, before it even happened. For fear that someone might inherit daddy's money and that someday that might lead to "Dynasty". Really strong argument you make there, Ash. Ford's (company) issues are not family problems. Their success was built on SUV sales and leading the design curve in the late 80s. The 500 is a Chrysler clone...they've lost their edge. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #272,172 by Another Scott 11/4/06 11:22:52 AM Reply	Eh? The 500 is a Chrysler clone. I don't think so. 2006 Ford 500: [image\|http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:5ONrOKIec9VdEM:http://designpurity.com/img/cars/ford.500.side.jpg\|0\|Ford 500 Side view\|89\|120] 1999 VW Passat: [image\|http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:jDZHggh9_Mw8BM:http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/longterm/vw.passat/99.vw.passat.ltu.july.500.jpg\|0\|1999 VW Passat\|82\|130] Ford scaled up the late 1990s VW Passat to make the 500. It's a fine looking car, and having 4WD as an option is nice, but it's about 5 years too late to market. Like most US companies, Ford (and GM and Chrysler) rode the SUV wave too long and didn't invest in efficient car production. Toyota and Honda are eating away at their market share and continuning to turn over product cycles faster than the big 3. Korean makers are eating the low end and it's only going to get more and more difficult to make money as over-capacity problems continue to get worse. Most of Henry's stock ended up at the Ford Foundation, which diversified over the years. I don't know if more draconian inheritance taxes would have changed much for them (since the taxes were in place at the time). The TAC story is interesting, and it is a possible future for Ford. But I doubt it'll go that way. US auto prodution may dry up, or continue to shrink, but I don't think Ford is going to get out of that business worldwide any time soon. Ford still has lots of advantages that Sudebaker didn't. And Ford has been in similar dire straits before, as Halberstam covered in [link\|http://www.amazon.com/Reckoning-David-Halberstam/dp/0380721473/sr=8-1/qid=1162656393/ref=sr_1_1/103-9749923-9889413?ie=UTF8&s=books\|The Reckoning]. My guess is that the Big 3 and their important suppliers will eventually dump their pensions on the [link\|http://www.pbgc.gov/\|PBGC] and the unions will be forced to accept much lower wages and benefits. It's hard to see them producing cars at a profit any other way. Along with those changes, I expect the big 3 to shrink from eleventy-seven divisions and brands to less than a handful (Toyota gets by in the US with 3 and Honda 2) and that production lines will be eventually be much more flexible. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #272,173 by bepatient 11/4/06 11:32:15 AM Reply	My first take was the 500 was an attempt by Ford to copy the Chrysler 300. In style AND naming convention. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #272,175 by Another Scott 11/4/06 11:37:42 AM Reply	Ford had a 500 in the 50s-70s (1957 Fairline 500). It may have been a reaction to the original 300, but they've had the naming for a long time. I think the car styling owes much more to the VW than the recent 300, myself. Cheers, Scott.
Post #272,193 by jbrabeck 11/4/06 1:09:41 PM Reply	Flashback I owned a '60 Ford Fairlane 500, in the early 70's. A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. (Herm Albright)

Welcome to IWETHEY!