Good article to get us back on topic.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-is-wrong-about-ford-stock-price-2017-5
http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-is-wrong-about-ford-stock-price-2017-5
Does ford need a new CEO?
- Thread starter mc01svt
- Start date
Says nothing about nullifying your insurance. The basic idea of the entire article boils down to "if your running a small business and screw up the smallest detail, some sleezy lawyer is gonna try and take it from you"...which pretty much applies to every situation you come into in a small business. And why you have liability/umbrella policies. Hell, they are talking more about tow connections than actual ratings, and mention that all pickups today are limited to 5000 pounds without additional towing equipment.
And as stated...it's 800 pounds between the 5.0 and the 2.7. I wanna see a single instance of an individual getting sued because his towed weight exceeded capacity by 800 or less pounds. Get real.
Edit: on top of all that, the difference in tow rating between the 5.0 and 2.7 is smaller in the several models I tried on the website (king ranch, XL, XLT) than the 3.5 vs 5.0. So if using the truck as a truck means towing to you....you'd still get a EB.
There's one reason, and one alone, they even offer a V8 still....a small group of people would go nuts without the option.
Last edited:
You probably need to talk to your insurance agent about your specific policy as they are all different. Even if they cover you, you aren't safe from any civil lawsuits regarding your negligence. Punishments will depend on local laws and ordinances. This was my first search result.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0214.htm
To add to that, a couple places we go to CHP cracks down on people towing large trailers without the proper license endorsement. They typically only pull over large trailers with 3 axles, but they will weigh the rig as license endorsements depend on how much you actually tow. They will fine you and have your trailer towed at your expense if overweight or you don't have the proper license.
Also, you really need to go back and read what I have written. I NEVER said the ecoboost engines don't perform well, nor did I say I don't like them. I even said I liked every one I have driven. I even owned an ecoboost fusion. I got a little sidetracked with your argumetn over the edmunds review where I said the 5.0 was the more practical truck if you tow compared the the 2.7, but that was it. Go ahead and look, i'll wait. All I said was in the real world, you won't get EPA results. I even said the article I linked wasn't perfect, but it was the first real comparison that popped up where it wasn't just random people spouting off numbers.
As far as capabilities, not sure where you get your numbers that put the 2.7 within the same class as the 5.0. Max 2.7 rating from Ford is 8500 pounds. Max for the 5.0 is 11000 pounds. Max for the 3.5 ecoboost is 12,200. The 5.0 and 3.5 max capacities are much closer than the 2.7 and 5.0.
https://www.ford.com/resources/ford/general/pdf/towingguides/17RV&TT_Ford_F150_Sep7.pdf
It would be more interesting what and where exactly those cuts are. The cuts are global, so these cuts may be primarily in under performing markets like Ford Asia. Ford of Japan no longer exists and Ford of Korea is probably next.
If Ford were getting revolutionary fuel economy out of their engines, I'd get it. But honestly, the 5.0 really doesn't do any better than chevy's 6.2. Now, I know people looking to buy a performance car don't think much about mpgs, but with EPA standards, it matters, and I can't blame anyone for buying a much bigger, higher torque engine when fuel economy is the same. I'm not gonna lie, if I could trade in my 2015 GT for an equal mileage 2016 Camaro 1SS and pay less than $4k out of pocket, I'd have to SERIOUSLY consider it.
Article you linked stated the 8100 and 9000 pound ratings. Also was looking at XLT etc on Ford's website but I did step up to the mega cans etc.
I don't doubt if your towing 15k with a half ton truck that has a 8k limit they are gonna drop the hammer. I have my doubts on a few hundred or even a thousand or two pounds. You are linking about a communist state though, so you never know. And it still doesn't negate your insurance...just opens you up to a lawsuit in the commy areas. That's whag insurance is for.
There's a reason there are different engines available, as some won't even tow at all. And I'll still argue that 9/10 people that do hook a trailer to a f150 won't exceed the limit of the 2.7, and in that case they are better off with it vs a 5.0.
No matter how you look at it, even with the article linked the truck got 2.x mpg better in city driving, and if they were honest has better daily driving characteristics not to mention far better response to simple aftermarket Bolton's.
It all boils down to this: a hardcore crowd is screaming to beat hell that Ford is screwing up by going the EB route...meanwhile people are snapping them up as fast as they can. And the EB revolution at Ford has created a situation never before seen from them....where you can buy a vehicle basically anywhere in the range with FI and get massive gains with minor aftermarket mods.
The real kicker is, Ford is basically breaking it off in the environmentalists rear end by creating a (successful) marketing campaign that manages to convince eco nuts a turbocharged engine is more environmentally friendly while giving enthusiasts a easy to program ECU that offers massive gains once you toss the emissions nonsense out the window. And yet people complain...
I just averaged 28mpg in my 15 Escape, new record for me. last time I made this trip I got 23.6 along the whole way. This time I saw tank averages of 25, 27, and 28. if I keep it under 75mph I get better MPG but I don't like driving that slow
FORD shakeupin progress it seems @13COBRA
http://jalopnik.com/ford-ceo-mark-f...ource=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
http://jalopnik.com/ford-ceo-mark-f...ource=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Jim Hackett is replacing him. I don't know how he is as a CEO, but I'm a huge fan of the Michigan Wolverines and he served as interim AD after they fired Dave Brandon. He did an excellent job, including hiring Jim Harbaugh.
Wow if true
The Board must have completely lost faith in Fields to make a move like this. A career Ford man booted after ~3ish years on the job and strong profits during that time. Figured they fire everyone else before him.
From the article:
"The shakeup is a result of Executive Chairman Bill Ford and the rest of the board losing confidence in Fields’ leadership, according to people familiar with the board’s thinking. Fields replaced Alan Mulally in mid-2014, but lacked his predecessor’s ability to rally employees around a common mission or to make critical decisions about the company’s strategy.
“Without Alan, it’s back to the inmates running the asylum,” said one insider.
Directors were increasingly alarmed by the deterioration in Ford’s business, despite hefty profits from its flagship F-series pickup truck line, said people familiar with the board’s thinking."
Hinrichs and Farrelly passed over?? Must want new blood. They may not be long at Ford.
The Board must have completely lost faith in Fields to make a move like this. A career Ford man booted after ~3ish years on the job and strong profits during that time. Figured they fire everyone else before him.
From the article:
"The shakeup is a result of Executive Chairman Bill Ford and the rest of the board losing confidence in Fields’ leadership, according to people familiar with the board’s thinking. Fields replaced Alan Mulally in mid-2014, but lacked his predecessor’s ability to rally employees around a common mission or to make critical decisions about the company’s strategy.
“Without Alan, it’s back to the inmates running the asylum,” said one insider.
Directors were increasingly alarmed by the deterioration in Ford’s business, despite hefty profits from its flagship F-series pickup truck line, said people familiar with the board’s thinking."
Hinrichs and Farrelly passed over?? Must want new blood. They may not be long at Ford.
Last edited:
Im surprised it took this long for him to get fired. The board wasnt just gonna stand by and watch the company lose 40% of its value while the CEO virtually ignores fords core business and talks to the press about mobility, cellphone apps, driverless cars and other none-profit activities.
good riddance..
good riddance..
So they put in the guy that runs the autonomous vehicle department...
That is weird.. double down on unproven unprofitable "future" tech instead of reversing paths back to your core business.
It's because the core business is antiquated. Simple as that.
To speak of a parallel, it's no different then backing us up to when carriage companies were larger than automakers (the few that existed). Essentially Mark Fields sees the current automobile as the carriage and his development investments as the new automobile. He's investing in what's coming, not what's here. Had carriage companies gone out and bought into the automotive manufacturers of their day, many would still be around. They were all too worried about maximizing profit now and not about being around in 20 years. Where are they now? DOA. Lets hope ford weathers the storm of Wall streets greed and can continue on.
Ford is woefully doing the same if Jack Hackett doesn't continue Fields emphasize on forward thinking. I expect he will though given his previous position.
Last edited:
Big ideas, even if they are "forward thinking" don't always become viable. This whole idea that electric driverless cars will completely dominate the market in the next 15yrs is almost laughable.
Everyone is brainwashed these days because of politicians telling the world that man made climate change is the biggest threat to humanity. Which is far from hard science. The reality is there doesn't exist a magic pill energy source that's equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
To put things in perspective there were fully electric carriages in the 1890s. Thomas Edison had a completely electric car in 1913. But yet, electrics taking over the market are always "right around the corner." The feds have been passing out $7,500 checks for the past 10yrs attached to each electric car and they are still less than 1% of the market.
Suppose I could've explained this better.
I wouldn't call the future "electric". More like "safety, technology, efficiency" makes better sense. Until the electrical grid catches up and wireless energy becomes a real viable thing, we aren't looking at an electric future. More like a hybrid future. One drop of gasoline will go much further than it ever has, cars will be expected to be smarter and more capable, and you will essentially be driving a safety bubble.
I do believe we should do our best to limit the environmental impact of automobiles and other petrol powered products. But that's another story entirely.
This was a dumb idea. Ford just got ranked the No. 1 company in autonomous technology and innovation. Plus Ford has been highly profitable. Maybe investors in companies like Ford are narrower-minded than those who buy shares in Tesla? Ford is ranked well-above Tesla in technology yet they're treated like a red-headed step-child on Wall Street. The timing is really odd, they're right on the cusp of releasing the new all-aluminum Expedition and Navigator. They're about to gobble-up marketshare from GM with the larger and lighter SUVs and profits will soar. Backing away from their tech innovation is a bad sign for anyone looking for long-term value.
Users who are viewing this thread
