Bloomberg reports a recent survey that shows Ford's initial quality is at the same level as Toyota's and Honda's. The survey, which ranked problems per 1k vehicles in the first three months of ownership, showed Ford's vehicles scored 1,284 against Toyota's and Honda's "statistically equivalent" 1,250. GM and Chrysler didn't do so well, scoring 1,367 and 1,744 respectively. Of course, Ford will crow about their "achievement" in their "Drive One" ads. What they won't tell you, though, is that Alan Mulally signed the figurative check to RDA Group for performing the survey. That's right folks — Ford bought the survey in which they placed so highly. I vented the editorial spleen when they did the same thing last year, so all I'll say this time is that it didn't seem to help their sales then so I hope they get their money's worth this time.
63 Comments on “Ford’s Initial Quality As Good As Toyonda’s...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
What is the first 3 months of a car’s life really going to tell you anyways? People baby the heck out of new cars. 3 months is not even enough time to require an oil change. How about a report that shows quality after owners have started to push the mechanical limits of the cars.
I think Ford paid off the wrong survey… again…
Break out the champagne! It seems like such a no-brainer to get this award, and it is essentially worthless to most people. What is scary are the cars absent from this list! Whether it be actual results or paid off, there are some people who pay mind to this list. What has impressed me is the Fusions continued above average reliability, given it’s made in Mexico. It seems cars manufactured there normally fare below average.
Thanks to whoever put those buttons for changing the type up on the bar. Or I’m blind for never having noticed them before.
I’m not ready to question the validity of this survey. After all, if Ford’s quality was not up to par, they would’ve simply buried the survey results.
quasimondo
I’m not ready to question the validity of this survey. After all, if Ford’s quality was not up to par, they would’ve simply buried the survey results.
On the other hand, they haven’t published what questions were asked, how they selected the respondents or any other methodology associated with the survey. So how can we know it wasn’t biased so Ford would get a high score? After all, they paid for it — why shouldn’t they expect favorable results?
I think you can validate Ford’s survey’s results by looking at the recent Consumer Reports and comparing reliability ratings. Even CR says Ford’s quality has been consistently improving over the last several years.
I drove a Fusion once. It was okay. It didn’t make me want to buy one.
Weeks later I drove a Mazda 6. That was fun. Fit & finish the materials used was much more appealing as well. I considered one of those when I when I bought my 07 Sonata a month ago. The deal breaker for the 6 was insurance. The Mazda would have broke the bank. Needless to say I have a few speeding tickets.
Five and ten years of ownership and how they rate the quality of their vehicle. Those are the surveys people want to read about. Have a survey like that come out yearly for a few years and people will be able to see if there is a trend with the vehicle of their choice.
I know it’s anecdotal, but “initial quality” doesn’t include my focus’s failed alternator at 35,000 miles.
They should change “drive one” to “burn one down.”
maybe they could have ben harper sing for their commercials-ah!
Initial quality is pretty much irrelevant these days – most any manufacturer worth his salt can turn out a car relatively free of defects in the first 3 months. Even JD Power is going away from measuring initial quality, emphasizing more on design and function in their latest iteration.
As turbobeetle mentioned, what customers really care about is how a car will hold up over 5 years and 100,000 miles, long after the warranty period is over.
Hang on a minute!
Ford paid for this survey and they STILL didn’t come out on top?!
My goodness! Even Ford can’t bribe properly!
Frank Williams
On the other hand, they haven’t published what questions were asked, how they selected the respondents or any other methodology associated with the survey. So how can we know it wasn’t biased so Ford would get a high score? After all, they paid for it — why shouldn’t they expect favorable results?
I’m sure it can’t be that difficult to have those questions answered by the RDA Group. If they throw up roadblocks, then you may be on to something.
I’d gladly take a check for $1M from Ford and create my own survey and give them the top spot and not release details or methodology. Make that check payable to…
Oh wait – still don’t park your Ford in the garage due to the cc fires – but they don’t catch fire in the first 3 months so everything’s hunky dory.
Katie,
The BS flags would go up if the survey came back with Ford on top ;)
Oh wait – still don’t park your Ford in the garage due to the cc fires – but they don’t catch fire in the first 3 months so everything’s hunky dory.
After 80K, I had to turn my trusty Explorer in. I never had any issues with the cruise control components, and it never burned up. Bummer.
Do I have to actally keep it in a garage so it can set itself on fire, or will outside parking work just fine?
Orian,
The BS flags are still up with Ford in second place, if Ford had placed lower, we’d have slated them for having poor quality and if Ford came in the middle, they’d have just blended in with all the mediocre marques.
The only thing I can conclude is that Ford paid for a survey which they were going to look bad no matter what the result!
Frank: I fully agree that initial quality is pretty much worthless. The only thing it really measures is if the factory put the beast together in a satisfactory fashion and that there are no obvious enginering or design outages.
But I do think it is a bit over the top to question the validity of the survey. On the face of it—Ford paying for it should raise eyebrows–however the fact that the data is coorberated by TrueDelta, Consumer Reports and JD Power should allow you to chill a bit. Additionally the data has showed year-on-year improvement over the past three. Last, given the intial quality issues Toyota has had with the recent Camry, Avalon, and Tundra launches—-are the survey results really a surprise to anyone ?
In other words—I think all data point to Ford improving quality. If they DIDN’T tout this in their upcoming campaign…I would really question Farley and his team…I’m sure a few that post on this site would do the same.
This begs the question: If FoMoCo’s initial quailty is SO good compared to Toyota and Honda (which i don’t believe!) then why are FoMoCo sales dropping every month (down almost 15% last month alone) like they are? Give me a Honda any day over a Ford.
Look at a Fusion’s engine compartment. Then, look at an Accord’s. And check out a Camry underhood.
The Fusion? “Stuff it and shut it.”
The Accord? “Let’s take the time to get this right. Underhood aesthetics and placement of common maintenance items are important.”
The Camry? “Stuff it, but before we shut it, put a two-dollar plastic cover over the mess.”
Problems-per-hundred at this level worse than useless, it is misleading. Check http://www.TrueDelta.com for a bunch of writing about this.
I would feel pretty awful buying any car and having a “problem” within the first few years, let alone 3 months. 1.3 or 1.7 problems..both are still bad.
Sure, Ford bought the study…but ALL companies buy all studies they advertise with. They hired an outside supplier to do the research. Good for them. This is a credible way to do research–perhaps the only credible way to do it.
Check out how JDPA works sometime. They create a million categories and then (if your ad people have no good ideas) they will decide to push how you were #1 in some category with one of your vehicles (which is an inevitable consequence of having many categories and only paying attention to rank, not problems-per-hundred magnitude). You then have to pay JDPA for the right to advertise JDPA! JDPA won’t change the process to something more meaningful because doing so would destroy their cash cow.
Don’t yell at a company for hiring third-party research and telling the truth with it. The auto marketing world is corrupt in more subtle ways (like selecting only good data and ignoring the bad). Ford gains credibility with me by putting Honda and Toyota at #1 because that is consistent with what I have seen.
GM loses credibility with me when they call Buick reliable because that is inconsistent with what I have seen.
For what it is worth, the anecdotes I have been getting from Ford owners is consistent with them being fairly high quality. I would actually consider getting a Focus (if only they would bring back the wagon and hatch).
“red dawg :
April 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am
This begs the question: If FoMoCo’s initial quailty is SO good compared to Toyota and Honda (which i don’t believe!) then why are FoMoCo sales dropping every month (down almost 15% last month alone) like they are? Give me a Honda any day over a Ford.”
2 words, “Perception gap”. Out of the domestics, Ford has the best reliability and the best chance of survival. Once (or should I say “if”?) they get their house in order, they’ll actually be a real threat to Toyota and Honda.
With the smaller production numbers, they can concentrate harder on quality and reliability, plus some of their styles are better than Toyota or Honda, which gives Ford the edge (no pun intended) over them (though, the UK Accord/Acura TSX is quite nice).
Like I said, this is provided they can get their house in order (i.e getting rid of certain members of management and letting engineers do what they do best, etc)
P.S It’s no coincidence that the domestic with the best chance of survival, is the one who is emulating the Japanese….
Both Consumer Reports and Mr. Karesh have repeatedly stated that their survey results show dramatic improvements in Ford quality. These independent results lend credence to this study.
Ford has certainly committed (more than) its share of past sins, but everything I’ve seen and read indicates that the quality improvements are real, and the company is separating itself from its domestic brethern when it comes to long-term reliability.
Now, to really get people into the showrooms, it has to work on styling, starting with the slapdash Focus and blandmobile 500/Taurus…
Ford’s quality is highly dependent on model and engine choices.
There are an awful lot of folks in my neck of the woods who would tell you that the best value used car for a given segment is a Ford… and in my opinion they would be right.
The Focus, Five Hundred/Montego, Crown Vic/Marquis, Freestyle, and Ranger are all heavily depreciated; especially when you consider the lower end versions of each. Pricewise they can be anywhere from 3k to 6k cheaper than comparable Toyondas, and virtually all of them can hit the 200k mark with proper care. They represent the classic case of purchasing 80% of a vehicle’s useful life for 40% of the price.
The Fusion/Milan, Mustang, and F150 tend to have better resale values (depending on the model). But I think anyone can make a pretty good case for the fact that the first batch of models are a pretty good choice for those who are simply looking at buying a two to four year old used car and driving it to the proverbial ground. In terms of crunching the numbers and the way most folks perform their daily driving, a late model used Ford can actually be a ‘Best Buy’.
On another note, I still think the Five Hundred should have been given a more upscale version called a Volvo 260; with classic Volvo styling cues to boot. But that’s a subject for another day.
CR and most other surveys bear this out. Even though Ford paid for it, I think the survey is correct. My family owns a ‘99 Merc Mystique, a ‘98 Ford F-150, and an ‘07 Ford Escape. Each coming generation has been more reliable than the last.
To you guys who says Toyotas have no problems, I’d have to point to the Tundra and some other Toyota models and say you’re wrong. Now, Toyotas and Hondas are more reliable, but that’s their thing. Fords (in my humble opinion) have always and always will look better than either Japanese marque.
In short, I’d rather have a Ford Mustang that lasts 150,000 miles than a Toyota Corolla that lasts 400,000. It’s just cooler, and if CR and this survey are any indication, the ‘Stang might just make it up there.
I’m sure Ford has worked on their quality issues, but they still have a lot of lingering lemons from the past haunting them.
The plastic ignition pieces that would randomly cause a car to stall while idling while in traffic and not immediately restart (took almost 10 years for that to get recalled and affected millions of vehicles). The fires in the trucks (happens enough to make the news pretty frequently including a family that lost their house to one going up in flames while parked in the garage a few months ago), the fuel tank in the Panther cars, etc.
Initial quality isn’t going to convince me. It’s going to take years of seeing no problems like they’ve had in the last 20 years before I’m convinced. Oh, and rapid recalls for problems – not waiting 10 years or until forced by the NHSTA or lawsuits to do the recall.
Toyota may have had some quality issues lately, but they don’t wait to recall it when they identify it. That builds trust.
Orian: “Toyota may have had some quality issues lately, but they don’t wait to recall it when they identify it. That builds trust.
Granted Ford has had its issues…but talk to those with the Toyota engine sludge problems….it took Toyota years to admit to that one. Toyota have also lagged on response to the transmission hesitation issue as well
Umterp- true on the sludge, but recent issues that have cropper up, like the cam issue in the Tundra were recalled quickly.
If recent sales numbers are any indication, it seems like a big chunk of Americans are waiting on a new car — possibly to see where gas prices are going, or new technologies. Is anyone seriously considering buying a car designed in the past few years that only gets 22 city and 30 highway to drive for the next FIVE years (2013) and 100K miles? Madness! What if gas is 5 dollars a gallon by 2009? Leasing may be the answer in the short term! Lessees pay alot of attention to initial quality (and your whole experience will be under warranty).
When cars achieve 40mpg, most cars before then (outside of utility trucks and sports cars) will quickly lose their value (unless the car is so cheap, the deal will be worth the gas).
I’ve noticed that whenever someone wants to slate Toyota’s reliability and quality, they ALWAYS bring up the sludge fiasco!
Toyota made a major screw up then, but they haven’t made that same mistake again, have they….?
As Orian points out with the cam issues for the Tundra.
Katie….I think the Toyota transmission hesitation issue is even on a larger scale than the sludge issue. While not as catastrophic as sludge—it is an issue that lingered for years before Toyota addressed it. Bigger picture—my point is that while Ford has had BIG issues and lagged in response—Toyota is not free and clear as Orion had posited.
BTW…can we start the “Can Fields” campaign :)
BerettaGTZ :
… what customers really care about is how a car will hold up over 5 years and 100,000 miles, long after the warranty period is over.
Steven Lang :
Ford’s quality is highly dependent on model and engine choices.
There are an awful lot of folks in my neck of the woods who would tell you that the best value used car for a given segment is a Ford… and in my opinion they would be right.
Agreed on all counts. I had an Aerostar that I should have scrapped at 72k rather than paying for a new A/C condenser and a head gasket job. It took massive infusions of cash to get that beast to 100k. On the other hand, the ‘99 Sable that I handed off to my son last year is running like a Swiss watch at 107k and hasn’t needed much work beyond routine maintenance and replacement of wear items.
When I shopped for a used car last summer, the Tauruses and Sables I found were thousands of dollars less than a comparable Accord or Camry. I bought a 2000 Sable with the same powertrain as my ‘99 (twin-cam V6 and AX4N automatic trans) and confidently expect it to run past 150k without major repairs.
I’ve noticed that whenever someone wants to slate Toyota’s reliability and quality, they ALWAYS bring up the sludge fiasco!
It’s only because it’s one of the only noteworthy reliability mistakes that Toyota has made, so they have to milk it. It’s just a matter of grasping for straws, pounding on a dead horse in an otherwise empty stable.
umterp85,
You cannot deny that it was Toyota (and Honda) who forced the American automakers to make quality and reliability a priority in cars. Likewise, you cannot deny that Toyota has bred a loyal following. Now whilst there were transmission and sludge issues, the majority of customers keep going back to them, now whether that’s because Toyota treated them well or the problems weren’t as bad as reported, doesn’t matter at this point. The fact is, Toyota have several satisfied customer (I’m one of them).
But compare that with Ford. I’ve lost count how many horror stories I’ve heard about them (again, myself included), but customers aren’t staying with them. So clearly, Toyota is doing something that Ford aren’t and that I think is Orian’s point.
No company is perfect, not even Toyota, but Toyota is still streets ahead of Ford, despite their transmission and sludge issues. Ford burnt alot of customers (and will burn a lot more if they keep using those cruise control modules!) so conversely, they have a LOT of making up to do! A few (paid for) surveys won’t be enough, they need to put their money where there mouth is. Toyota EARNED their reputation for quality and reliability, just like Ford earned their reputation. Ford shouldn’t be telling customers to buy their cars, they should making customers WANT to buy their cars.
Like I said earlier, if Ford can get their house in order, they have a chance at being a real threat at Toyota and Honda. Their reliability seems to be shaping up and once all the production figures are cuts, they’ll have more time to make each car more reliable and better quality. Couple that with their better styling, Ford can make Toyota and Honda’s life hell. But like I said, it’s if they can get their house in order.
As for Mark Fields, he’s done more harm to Ford than good. His Mazda turnaround was suspect (posting records profits after a year? Highly suspect. How much of that turnaround was work by previous management) couple that with the fact that he didn’t turn a profit at PAG AND Ford America, leads me to believe that Mullet Mark needs to be kicked to the kerb! Fast!
PCH 101: It is also fact and TRUTH—isn’t that what this site is all about ?
Just because it is one of the few Toyota quality glitches on a major scale—does that not mean it should be mentioned to correct another posters omission ?
Are you suggesting censorship of any Toyota bad news ? Please do not take this as a flame—it is just an honest question.
Katie: I do not disagree with your post. Your points are valid—-but hyperbole should be corrected with fact….that is what I did. If I ever suggested (or inferred) historic Ford quality could ever be compared to Toyota…that was not my intent…because that in fact would be hyperbolic as well.
I’ve got a friend who used to work for Nissan, and these initial quality surveys apparently have just as much to do with dealer prep as they do with the vehicle itself. For example, someone complained about water spots on the plastic window that covers the speedo. That counts as a ding for initial quality.
Just goes to show that many of these surveys are better used to wipe yourself with than to be taken too seriously.
I do not care if my new car had 1, 2, 3 or 5 easily corrected defects in the first few months as long as the dealer takes care of them quickly and with grace.
I do care about escalating costs post-warranty because I keep my cars and drive them plenty.
The paint which fell off my four year old Taurus still makes me mad even though that was years ago. Funny, I haven’t owned any cars before or after that which had disappearing paint. Ford told me tough luck. I haven’t forgotten, and I haven’t bought another new Ford.
Ford once again demonstrates that they are quite willing to throw money at intangibles. I’m going to run out and buy one of their products because of a survey? How about I talk to friends and colleagues who actually own them for feedback? My Ford from years ago, it initially was fine. So what? Years later all manner of failures and leaks. Goodwill? Sorry sucker, you foot the bill. They honestly expect me to buy from them again? “Fool me once…” – and hey, I KNOW how that line goes.
Just because it is one of the few Toyota quality glitches on a major scale—does that not mean it should be mentioned to correct another posters omission ?
This emphasis on the sludge problem is a bit like comparing your A student who brings home a C on his report card with the juvenile delinquent who routinely brings home report cards full of D’s and F’s.
Both have proven to be fallible, true. But one of them is MUCH MUCH worse than the other. Their failure rates aren’t even close, so it’s completely dishonest and disingenuous to speak of both of them as if they are equally bad, when they aren’t equal at all.
I’ll make a deal with you — you can talk about the sludge all you like, but every time you do, you had also better mention Firestone tires, igniting cruise controls, piston slap, Dexcool, and the rest. (Feel free to add a few bon mots about exploding Pintos, melting Vega engine blocks, and some of the other classic failures, while you’re at it.) That would be balanced.
Constantly bringing up the sludge problem frankly makes the domestic supporters look desperate. After all, if you’ve got only one thing to complain about from the last decade of vehicle production, then that tells you that the quality is actually quite high because you can’t come up with other noteworthy examples that are worth complaining about.
Frank Williams :
“On the other hand, they haven’t published what questions were asked, how they selected the respondents or any other methodology associated with the survey…”
Gee that sounds just like Consumer Reports. Go True Delta!
PCH101: Please re-read my prior post to Katie. Thanks in advance for your apology to your flame / hyperbolic response to my position.
BTW—while I lean domestic—you will see a pattern of fact based responses on several threads /topics from me that harpoon and lampoon the domestic 3 when they deserve it….for example…you might want to scroll down my TWAT choices this year, my call for Ford mgmt to can Mark Fields, and my bashing of GM regarding their lack of brand mgmt skills (this is just to name a few).
red dawg:
“This begs the question: If FoMoCo’s initial quailty is SO good compared to Toyota and Honda (which i don’t believe!) then why are FoMoCo sales dropping every month (down almost 15% last month alone) like they are? *** Give me a Honda any day over a Ford. ***”
You just answered your own question.
Thanks in advance for your apology to your flame / hyperbolic response to my position.
There’s no hyperbole here. Toyota does not have a perfect track record, but in the area of reliability, it has a supremely better one than most of its rivals. As a consumer, I can only play the odds, and it’s obvious who offers better odds.
The sludge references don’t really change those odds much, and they almost invariably attempt to distort these substantial differences between the track records.
I’ll make a deal with you — you can talk about the sludge all you like, but every time you do, you had also better mention Firestone tires, igniting cruise controls, piston slap, Dexcool, and the rest. (Feel free to add a few bon mots about exploding Pintos, melting Vega engine blocks, and some of the other classic failures, while you’re at it.) That would be balanced.
So what you want to engage in, essentially, is a pissing contest about who can create the bigger screwup. If you want to haunt Ford about this instead of acknowledge (begrudgingly, if you have to) that they’ve taken steps to improve their defciencies, well I guess there’s no further discussion that can take place.
Pch101: I’ll make a deal with you — you can talk about the sludge all you like, but every time you do, you had also better mention Firestone tires, igniting cruise controls, piston slap, Dexcool, and the rest.
I agree with your larger point – people harp on the Toyota sludge issue because…that is about the only major quality issue with Toyotas. And it really wasn’t that widespread. I have yet to run into anyone who experienced this problem. (It pains me to admit it as a Honda fan, but Honda’s problems with automatic transmissions hooked up to V-6 engines were much more widespread.)
However, to be fair here, this is a Ford thread, and the Dexcool and piston-slap problems affected GM vehicles, not Fords.
And, for what it’s worth, the people I know who have bought GM cars in the last 3-4 years have been having more problems with them than people who bought Fords during the same time frame. (Everyone I know who has a GM car with the 3.1, 3.4 or 3.8 V-6 has experienced the intake manifold gasket failure, which, in one case, required an engine rebuild.)
Ford really HAS improved its vehicles over the past 4-5 years. The quality gains have been recorded by independent sources. Let’s at least give credit to one American company that appears to have swallowed its pride, copied what the best of the Japanese have been doing, and is reaping the benefits (and the customers are reaping those benefits, too).
Now, Ford they could just do something about the styling of the Focus and Taurus…
So what you want to engage in, essentially, is a pissing contest about who can create the bigger fuckup.
There’s no contest. The competition has already been held, and Detroit took the prize. I’m just clarifying the results.
Ford really HAS improved its vehicles over the past 4-5 years. The quality gains have been recorded by independent sources. Let’s at least give credit to one American company that appears to have swallowed its pride, copied what the best of the Japanese have been doing, and is reaping the benefits (and the customers are reaping those benefits, too).
Agreed. There is plenty of data, aside from this survey referenced here, to support the belief that at least some Ford vehicles, such as the Fusion, are quite reliable. It’s a bit early to say for sure — more time is required to evaluate the long term — but so far, so good.
Ford’s probably just sick of paying double to the resident extortionists (*cough* JD Power *cough*) to get the results then advertise the same ambiguous findings.
Keep in mind “Things Gone Wrong” can include anything from a missing floormat to an inoperative transmission to some uninformed customer taking the car to the dealer to complain the mirrors won’t work, just to find out the switch was in the center toggle position. The sum total of these survey numbers is meaningless unless you weigh the nature and magnitude of the problems.
I doubt Honda and Toyota consider initial quality to be irrelevant. The companies that lead in long-term quality first got their act together in intial quality. It’s a good bet that these Ford vehicles that scored high in initial quality will also score well at 3 years of service. Also, a number of auto companies pay for the quality studies to track their progress. Ford and other companies have contracted with RDA Group for a number of years and these numbers usually track very closely to the J.D. Power numbers that will be released in about a month.
umterp85 – From what I read you really like Fords and have quite a supporting role for them here on TTAC. That’s all in good but Ford has literally killed 1,000s of it’s customers with very dangerous products and tried to hide these problems and lie about them.
For the record – Toyota made due and extended the claim period on the sludge issue – Honda extended transferrable drivetrain warranties to 100k miles (In fact I’ve never read about GM or Ford doing the same for transmission problems and many of their cars had a much higher failure rate).
They need to release the tests / surveys and statistics they used to create this report. I find it funny that Ford came out on top and they were the major sponsor for it in the first place.
I suppose it is inevitable that folks would add two and two to get five. What folks fail to realize is that word of mouth can only go so far, and word of mouth only works one way, so when Ford finally starts building cars that don’t roll over (and I’ve tried very hard to get my Explorer to roll), or spontaneously combust (short of firing a tank round at it, my Explorer has failed to do that as well), nobody’s going to say anyting because that’s what they’re supposed to do in the first place.
So how does Ford get the word out that their cars aren’t as breakable as they were in the past? Hire a firm to suvey them. Who else is going to do the survey, Ford employees?
The idea that the RDA Group fudged the numbers (unless proven otherwise) is ludicrious. They have a reputation to maintain too, and I’m sure if word got around that they’re fudging numbers to cast their customers in a more favorable light they’d be found out in a hurry.
I am with jolo. Let’s see the 5 and 10 year stories. That would likely also answer Quasi’s question as well. The real problem anyone who let’s their quality fall will have is that once people expect failure, then each little problem reinforces that belief.
jaje : “umterp85 – From what I read you really like Fords and have quite a supporting role for them here on TTAC. That’s all in good but Ford has literally killed 1,000s of it’s customers with very dangerous products and tried to hide these problems and lie about them.”
Three points:
1) Other than a 1988 Mustang—I did not own any Fords until my 2005 Mustang and 2007 Lincoln MKX. So I am far from a Ford Fanboy. Between the ‘88 Mustang and the 2005 Mustang. I owned a wide range of vehicles including 2 VW’s, 2 BMW’s, 1 Chevy, 1 Honda, 2 Jeeps.
2) I feel the need to support Ford now because I do want at least one domestic auto producer to survive and of the three Ford has clearly earned my support due to better leadership (its no secret I like Mulally) improved quality / design and surprise—a great dealership experience. That said—-when they F up I have pointed it out (eg. not bringing current Euro Focus to market, retaining an empty suit like Fields etc) and will continue to do so. Unlike some—I do not cheer for their demise but rather will be glad if they are able to “make it” by focusing on the right things. Accordingly, I applaud those like Geeber and Katie P. that clearly are not Ford fanboys (girls) but balance their Ford criticism with plaudits when warranted.
3) While recognizing past Ford management has made major mistakes that have resulted in catstophic consequesnces for some (I would like you to send me a link that factually states Ford has killed 1000’s)—I cannot hold the current Ford Management team accountable for those errors and accordingly will not withhold my support. Thats like saying I will not buy Japanese or German products for the genocide they inflicted in WW2. Net, I cannot hold current Japanese and German people or companies that were willing accomplices (eg. BMW, VW, Daimler) accountable for those past mistakes…that would be plain stupid as they had nothing to do with it !