Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: B Knotts

There is some misinformation here. Ford is not GM and has not nearly the problems that GM has. GM is terminal and will have no alternative but to go Chapter 11 but only after it gets much, much worse.

Anyone not able to recognize the Mustang but for its Ford emblem needs to have his eyes checked. And to declare the Ford 500 as a Taurus is pure nonsense. They are nothing alike. The Ford 500 is based on the S-80 Volvo chassis. I drove one yesterday and it is a very fine automobile. Even has a six speed automatic. That's no Taurus.


37 posted on 05/06/2005 9:41:12 PM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: RichardW
I didn't say the Five Hundred was a Taurus; that was someone else.

It's probably a fine car, although they did have some early initial-quality problems.

However, it is completely boring and underpowered by today's standards.

It should have been more aggressively styled, with rear wheel drive and a bigger engine.

Ford is good at coming out with really neat concept cars, and then never implementing any of the ideas from the concepts. The 427 concept was brilliant, but they have completely ignored it in developing their new models.

38 posted on 05/07/2005 10:58:33 AM PDT by B Knotts (Viva il Papa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: RichardW
"There is some misinformation here. Ford is not GM and has not nearly the problems that GM has. GM is terminal and will have no alternative but to go Chapter 11 but only after it gets much, much worse."

GM is sitting on 20 BILLION in cash and so it is not in any immenent danger. It's major problem is not with it's line up which has been sabotaged by the soaring price of gasoline. They along with Ford and Chrysler have concentrated on trucks for a long while because that is what people wanted. Their major problem is their pension medical coverage costs for their retired and current workers. I believe that like the airlines GM will convince the unions to give back a good part of the benefits package they won over the years. Of course the unions can refuse but if they do they will more then likely wind up with a useless agreement with claims on a company that simply can not pay them. Simply put I see no way the union can NOT agree to give backs.

42 posted on 05/07/2005 11:11:40 AM PDT by JoeV1 (Democrat Party-The unlawful and corrupt leading the blind and uneducated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson