EDITORIAL: Free-market Ford laps Government Motors

The Washington Times ^ | April 1, 2011 | Editorial

[jazusamo]

Bureaucrats can’t run a car company, let alone the whole country

Ford Motor Co. beat General Motors in March sales, another small but significant victory of private enterprise over government micromanagement. Since the 2009 government takeover of GM, competition between the two leading domestic auto manufacturers has taken on strong ideological overtones. It serves as an ideal test case, a microcosm of the competition between two worldviews, the automotive equivalent of North vs. South Korea. Right now, the good guys are winning.

Ford has been giving GM a run for its money since the competition began. In October, Ford recorded a 68 percent increase in its third-quarter net income, the sixth straight profitable quarter during the worst economy since the Great Depression. The blue oval passed Toyota to become the second largest auto brand sold in America. In March, Ford sold 212,295 vehicles, beating GM by 5,674 units - only the second time since 1998 that Ford won the monthly sales race. It did this without the supposed “benefits” of government intervention, except to the extent government minders have kept GM from maintaining its historically dominant position.

March sales numbers also highlight the lax public response to the Obama administration’s continued emphasis on “green” technology. One of Ford’s mainstays is the F-series pickup, sales of which are up 25 percent over the previous year. This full-sized truck gets 19 miles per gallon, very fuel efficient for a pickup in its class but not exactly a poster vehicle for environmentalists...

[onevoter]

This is most likely based, at least in part, on people voting with their dollar. Up until the government take-over, all I ever owned was a GM. I am now a proud driver of a Ford. GM will have to make-up in innovation what it lost in PR. While union minions and welfare recipients may be all for GM, the rest of the population is left with a bad taste for what used to be a standard bearer for hard-working Americans.

[xzins]

In 92, I believe, I bought a gasoline, Geo Metro, standard transmission, 1 liter, 3 banger engine and got 50 mpg.

The “rules” got rid of that one, too. It was slow pickup in the auto version, but the standard did just fine. Wish I’d kept it.

When gasoline is this high, people just adjust in their thinking about acceleration. The Metro cruised just fine at about 60. I think (don’t remember exactly) we were still under the dumb 55 mph rules at the time. People drove 65 and 70 anyway.

[truthguy]

If your Chevys were so bad, why did you have six of them? Yes we all know the Vega was a POS. But I actually had one of them. I took very good care of it and changed the oil and other fluids on a regular basis. I didn't push it hard and I was able to put about 120K miles before it fell apart. But it only cost $2,200. So it wasn't a bad deal.

My experience with Chevy Pickups is quite different than yours. My brother in law had a lot of problems with his Ford Taurus. So Ford had as many problems as Chevy. Remember the Pinto? It was at least as bad as the Vega. Ford mid-sized cars of the 70's, 80's and even into the 90's were also garbage. Even Mustangs were junk until very recently.

Now Ford has excellent products. Good! Great! My next car may be a Ford. My point is not to knock Ford, only to say that Ford didn't really do any better than GM with regards to product. It wasn't that Ford had better vehicles. Ford made some very clever financial moves that made them stronger than GM when it hit the fan in 2008-9. They lots tons of money the same as GM and Chrysler. But they were better prepared. They do not or did not have better product.

[Don W]

Company supplied cars.

I had a Pinto too, and it was a very good little car.

You’ve had better luck with GM cars than I. I’ve had excellent luck with Fords. That’s how the ball bounces. Neither of us are wrong, we have just had different experiences with the respective brands.