Well, in this one you know Alex Maciag is Director of Manufacturing for Ford’s Automatic Transmission Operations. If there is an abuse at the plant level the top dog is the Plant Manager. The Director of Manufacturing for Ford’s Automatic Transmission Operations does not deal with personnel issues at the plant level. Again, if you were inside you would know this.
The ME Manager would be the first level in charge of oversight of such an action. Again, if you were inside you would know this.
IF you are inside......why don't you know these things?
The plants “have had a few shifts canceled due to a frame supplier not being able to keep up,” Hillyard wrote in a post on UAW Local 429’s Facebook page April 1. “The demand for the new F-150 is very strong and it looks to be a busy year once the supply base is able to keep up with the two truck plants.”
How long will you hold onto that desperate notion while the new SYNC 3 system is rolled out in new models?
Got some good Nixon digs?
"HAR?" Can you see yourself? What kind of immature brat writes like that?
"Innovation is our goal," said Kevin Layden, director, Ford Electrification Programs, in a release. "The way to provide the best technology is through constant development and progress. By sharing our research with other companies, we will accelerate the growth of electrified vehicle technology and deliver even better products to customers."
"As an industry, we need to collaborate while we continue to challenge each other," said Layden. "By sharing ideas, companies can solve bigger challenges and help improve the industry."
Executive Chairman Ford was to make the announcement today during a speech at the Mackinac Policy Conference, calling it a move to help accelerate industry-wide research and development of electrified vehicles.
Ford owns more than 25,000 patents in the U.S. In 2014, Ford filed more than 2,000 new applications, of which more than 400 patents — or 20% — were related to electric vehicle technologies.
As the automaker sells older technology, Ford plans to hire 200 engineers this year to work on electrification programs in the new lab Ford recently built in Dearborn to expand this work.
Ford's patent division licenses everything from drawings to logos to inflatable seatbelts. The money is reinvested in engineering of new technology.
Ford has six hybrid or fully electrified vehicles for the Ford and Lincoln brands. The automaker has more than 650 electrified vehicle patents and approximately 1,000 pending patent applications related to electrification.
Among the patents for purchase: a way to balance a battery charge to extend its life and a regenerative brake system to drive further on a charge.
That's from a Detroit Free Press article today, edited for relevence.
LOL, I have robert on ignore because, well, everyone should. Greatday is not on my ignore list because he has valid posts.
Yeah, this is the same guy.......lol!!!
Ok, a name like outhouse.....HAS to go on ignore. A self respecting person would not have such a username.
I have not caught wind of anything that would hint what this will be about. No inter-company videos or emails from Fields or Hinrichs about anything having to do with this. Sorry.
Visteon filed for reorganization bankruptcy protection in 2009. If you remember correctly there was a "thing" going on then. You are saying that the crash of 2008-2009 of the automotive industry, as a result of the mortgage crisis, had nothing to do with it? It was all Ford? During the time when record numbers of suppliers were filing bankruptcy or just plain going out of business due to lack of demand of parts Visteon would have done stellar if not for Ford? While so many other suppliers went out of business during this time, or had to be financially supported by the auto manufacturers to keep them from going out of business, this had ZERO impact on Visteon?
This from USA Today, May 2009..... - To help Visteon continue to operate, Ford said it will provide financing during Chapter 11 protection. A spokesman declined to say how much money Ford would provide. Visteon was spun off from Ford in 2000.
"Because Visteon is an important, preferred supplier to Ford, we have committed to providing financial support to help Visteon meet its business challenges," Tony Brown, Ford's head of global purchasing, said in a statement.
Ford, who was depending on Visteon for continued delivery for parts to be able to keep operating, had no interest in keeping Visteon afloat? It appears they could not afford to lose them. That's why Ford BOUGHT BACK the bad parts of the company in order to spin them off and save the profitable parts of the company. Unfortunately, the rug was yanked out from under both of them with the financial crisis. Associated Press article from 2005..
DETROIT, Sept. 13 (AP) - The Ford Motor Company and the auto-parts maker Visteon said Tuesday that they had reached definitive agreements to transfer unprofitable plants back to Ford.
The transfer of 17 plants and 6 offices, research centers and other operations in the United States and Mexico to Ford, Visteon's former parent, is expected to take place on Oct. 1, the companies said.
They took out loans in the private sector instead of taking a bail out.
This from a Newsweek article, December 4, 2008....
"Mulally didn't sound any death knells for his company. On the contrary, he suggested Ford just wants a federal backstop—"$9 billion in bridge financing, something we hope we will not need to use." After all, he notes, Ford is not running out of cash and was actually making money earlier this year before gas prices spiked and credit collapsed. He figures Ford has the wherewithal to make it to 2010, when new small cars and electric vehicles arrive and labor savings kick in. By 2011, he predicts the red ink will stop flowing and Ford will be breaking even or back in the black."
That was the request for the $9 billion line of credit IF Ford needed it, that it be available. Ford was not asking for the money now. This from the same article....
"Ford CEO Alan Mulally told lawmakers Thursday he didn't expect to use the bailout billions he was seeking. Instead, he just wanted a "safeguard" from Uncle Sam. Should Congress not come through, analysts say Ford could still keep on rolling, even as its cross-town rivals crash. "Ford could end up being the sole survivor," says bond analyst Shelly Lombard of Gimme Credit research."
Ford never borrowed any bail out money. It was not needed. If you would like to talk about what Ford could have done, but didn't, then you need to go talk with someone who wants to talk about history that didn't happen.
"...while Mulally must have picked his up at Goodwill and that might have something to do with Boeing passing on him."
Passing on him how? He was President for 8 years and CEO for 4 of those years. Where is the passing part? And you really believe how someone dresses determines if he/she is the best person to be CEO? Mulally is older than Fields and has an older taste for suits. Mulally wore sport coats while Fields wears suits. I guess if Jac Nasser was an even better dresser he wouldn't have done so terribly as CEO?
"As far as Ford not having to take any Gov't money, they swung a deal for a 20+ million (??) dollar private loan. Before that, Mr. M was begging at the table like the rest of them...."
Ford was able to secure just over $24 billion in loans from financial institutions on their own. The blue oval and other things were put up as collateral. Ford paid the loans back, 100%, with interest. If you want to point to this as a detriment then condemn everyone with a Mortgage too.
As far as "begging at the table like the rest of them" goes, the loans were secured BEFORE the bailout hearings began. Also, Ford was not asking for a bailout, at the first hearing only they were asking for a $9 billion line of credit, just in case. Mulally was not even asking to receive the money. He was asking that a line of credit be available, if needed, because they had already secured the $24 billion. This was during the first hearing. At the second hearing Mulally rescinded his request. When asked at the second hearing what Ford was interested in as far as receiving any financial assistance from the Government Mulally said "We're OK." He only spoke about the benefit to the automotive industry in GM and Chrysler receiving what they needed......and Ford would be OK on their own.
If pretendyes his another alias of mead2014, you need to use the mead2014 alias to respond to my query as your pretendyes alias is on ignore.
Thanks for that.
I had read..."Mr. Petersen joined Ford in 1949 after receiving a master's degree in Business Administration from Stanford University."
I had not found anywhere that says he ever actually worked as an Engineer, as Mulally had. That experience is invaluable. He got his Engineering degree in 1946 and started at Ford in 1949 after getting his degree in Business Management, and to my knowledge never worked for Ford as an Engineer, or anyone else prior to his Ford career. Do you know of any record where he ever worked as an Engineer?
LOL, didn't like the responses you got in the last Topic you created about this so you started another, huh? Taking your ball and going home?
I guess I will just copy and paste my response here again since we did this already....
Hyundai/Kia, Suzuki, Mitsubishi. What do you think of these names? Low market share, not tops in quality. These are the only other car companies that offer a 100K powertrain warranty on their engines. So, without a reputation for quality (Hyundai/Kia has improved) and with low sales the strategy is to give people confidence that they won't have to pay for the expected, needed repairs that are coming. GM must not want to appear to be part of that group.
Audi 50K miles, less than GM
BMW 50k miles, less than GM
Honda 36k miles, less than GM
Jaguar 50k miles, less than GM
Mazda 50k miles, less than GM
Mercedes 50k miles, less than GM
Nissan 60k miles, same as GM
Volkswagen 60k miles
Volvo 50k miles, less than GM
Toyota 60k miles, same as GM.
These figures are according to the Car Lemon website.
"Mulally was a flip of a coin away from being CEO of Boeing."
You didn't know he was CEO of Boeing for 4 years? This is from Bloomberg Business...
He served as President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Inc. from September 1998 to September 5, 2006 and from August 2002 to September 5, 2006, respectively.
"Mark Fields is not an engineer. Why they put a non engineer in charge of an engineering company is beyond me."
Before Mulally, preceding CEO's.....Bill Ford, not an Engineer, Jac Nasser, not an Engineer, Alex Trotman, not an Engineer, Harold Poling, not an Engineer, Donald Petersen, not an Engineer........... get the point?
Personally I believe the CEO of Ford would benefit from having an Engineering degree. This is why I was excited for Mulally to arrive at Ford. However, it has not been typical of Ford CEO's. It seems there is more emphasis on business management. They do, however, work up through the ranks and gain exposure in many areas of the company including manufacturing, finance, purchasing, and more. However, your point is moot because there is no history at Ford to support your point. Engineering is only one facet of the company. Sales, marketing, and much more are required to make it work as well.
"He was pushed out so that the old hands can take credit for fixing Ford."
PLEASE elaborate and illustrate that point. I've GOT to see this!! LOL!!
Old US Ranger wheelbase - 111.6"
New Ranger wheelbase - 126.8 = 15.2" longer than the old truck.
Old US Ranger overall length - 15' 7-1/2"
New Ranger overall length - 16' 9-1/4" = 1 foot, 1-3/4" longer.
There is an even longer version of the new Ranger but that is only 1 of 4 different variations. The rest have the spec's above. It is not a mini truck, it is a mid-sized truck now. GM's new "small" trucks are even bigger.
I had to do a lot of digging. It seems to be quite a new announcement and I don't find torque figures, which are a diesel's strong point. HP is 94, but torque is likely to be impressive. I will keep an eye out for it.
No, the article states the 1.5L engine, which is a turbo diesel. It is replacing the current 1.6L diesel engine.
Nope, diesel only. No electric.
As mentioned, their Imperial gallon is larger than our US gallon, and their fuel mileage rating system is different from our's. In the US it would probably be around 55 mpg. Personally, I could go for that.