FORD CEO ALAN MULALLY TESTIFIES ON CAPITOL HILL

[68fastback]

Very nicely positioned speech, imo... link to full text below. -Dan

---
FORD CEO ALAN MULALLY TESTIFIES ON CAPITOL HILL

NOTE TO EDITOR: Today, Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Mr. Mulally's complete written testimony is available here.

The following statement was prepared for delivery:

WASHINGTON, D.C., Nov. 18 –
"Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Shelby and members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here representing the Ford Motor Company.

As you know, the auto industry has been heavily affected by the turmoil in the financial markets. Much of the recent commentary has suggested that our companies "need a new business model."

I completely agree. In fact, we at Ford are well on our way to transforming our company and building a new Ford that has a very bright future.

There are two fundamental questions today:

• First, is there a competitive and sustainable future for our domestic automotive industry?

• Second, is the provision of government assistance to help bridge the domestic auto industry through these difficult economic times more favorable to our nation than the costs of inaction?

I believe the answer to both is "yes."
As a relative newcomer to this industry, I have the benefit of seeing the auto business and its transformation clearly. I see parallels with what I witnessed at Boeing after the nine-eleven tragedy and the steps we took to transform commercial airplane business.

I can tell you that the transformation at Ford is even more aggressive, and the progress we are making is remarkable.

Our plan for the past two years has been consistent:

• Aggressively restructure to operate profitably at the current lower demand and the changing model mix

• Accelerate the development of safe, fuel-efficient, high-quality new products that customers want and value

• Finance our plan and improve our balance sheet

• And work together as one team, leveraging our global assets

Our goal is to create a viable Ford Motor Company and a lean global enterprise delivering profitable growth for all.

Few companies have restructured more aggressively. We have taken out excess capacity, closing 17 plants and reducing our work force by 51,000 employees. We negotiated a new contract with the UAW to improve our competitiveness.

We shifted to a balanced product lineup offering high quality, proven safety and good value. We are delivering the best or among the best fuel economy with every new vehicle.

The speed and breadth of our transformation is evident by actions just this week alone:

• Tomorrow at the Los Angeles Auto Show, we will introduce two all-new hybrids. Our new Ford Fusion Hybrid beats the Toyota Camry Hybrid by at least six miles per gallon.

• Today, we are submitting our application for direct loans, authorized by Congress last year, to help us speed advanced technologies and vehicles to market.

• On Friday, we end large SUV production at our Michigan Truck Plant and begin converting to fuel-efficient small car production.

To fund our new products and restructuring, we went to the capital markets early and divested non-core assets.

In addition, our Ford Credit business has consolidated abroad to preserve capital in support of our U.S. consumers and dealers. We appreciate the recently introduced asset-backed commercial paper funding facility, and anxiously await the Administration's term securitization facility.

In the same way, the FDIC's approval of Ford Credit's pending industrial loan bank application will enable us to meet the financial needs of our dealers and our retail customers.

As a result of all of our actions, we were profitable in the first quarter of this year and well on our way to sustainable profitability before the economic and credit crisis hit.

We have taken decisive action to deal with this new reality. We have cut production. We have further reduced employment. We have eliminated raises and bonuses for 2009.

We took these measures while protecting the new vehicles that will secure our future.

Now, we believe we must join our competitors in asking for your support to gain access to an industry bridge loan that will help us navigate through this difficult economic crisis. We suggest the loans be structured in a revolving format, so exposure to the taxpayer would be limited – and, if used, would be repaid with interest.

We at Ford are hopeful that we have enough liquidity. But we also must prepare ourselves for the prospect of further deteriorating economic conditions in 2009.

The domestic auto industry is highly interdependent. A collapse of one of our competitors would not only affect Ford and our transformation plan, but would have a devastating ripple effect across the economy.

I am more convinced than ever that we have the right plan to transform Ford. With your help, we will create a safeguard to deal with the growing economic uncertainty, while all of us at Ford continue to deliver on our plan to create a thriving auto business for the benefit of all of us.

Thank you."

[Alloy Dave]

I must say I watched this for about 30 minutes while walking on the treadmill at the fitness club, and I was not impressed with any of the 3 speakers. All they did was blame everything but their own management for the issues they've had. Only the Chrysler CEO even would answer Senator Shelby's question about "are there any mistakes your company has made that you'd acknowledge".

In addition, all three of them were opining on the impact a fall of the Big3 would have on GDP, the supply base, the American economy, etc. When in the he&& did they become macroeconomists? I felt like reaching through the TV and telling them to focus on their own companies and not try to scare Congress and the public into giving them a bunch of money.

Can you tell I'm totally against a bailout? I'd be ok with a hybrid solution....give them the loans, but demand they put forth specific plans, with deadlines, and if they miss a deadline, the plug gets pulled. In addition, we (the taxpayers) should be able to take a portion of future profits in exchange for the kindness of supporting them during their difficult times.

Dave

[68fastback]

I generally agree with you, Dave. I would be ok with loans only (which is all they're asking for).

---

I saw where the hourly cost for an employee of the domestics is $73-76/hour (labor and burden) vs $37-43 for the imports (I showed a range bacuse three diff channels reported three different sets of numbers).

Much of that diff is attributed to better benefits and legacy costs and while reorganization under bankruptcy would open the door to renego much of that I think there's more to the problems and a dose of irony too.

Aside from the most recent downturn in the economy (which has little to do with the auto industry per se) which is pinching them as everyone else, I think the biggest failure sits squarely on the shoulders of the media. Really!

Just as they've poisoned political candidates in the past from judges to VP candiates, they have blindly clung to coolaid-drinking view of the superiority of Toyota and Honda with talking heads who spew the well molded and managed releases of those darling brands without so much a mirror-foggin consciousness of the extraordinary quality comeback of the domestics, etc (not to beat that to death).

The irony, as I see it, is that for the first time in prolly 20 years give or take, Ford and GM really have made systematic improvements to both product, process and plant and, prior to the general downturn, were on track (at least Ford was) for a turn-around. Actually, Ford had already turned profitable even in NA prior to the down turn and has been broadly profitable outside the US ongoing. So, especially for Ford, who brought in Mullaly and is midstream in what I blelive is a most excellent turnaround plan on par with those we've seen from IBM, Motorola and Apple (of others) and given they cannot control the vagaries of the economy, the lower costs of T & H that are not due to process superiority any longer, and the broader uneven playing field of protectionist foreign government/markets, I think it's ironic that Congress thinks the industry is a dinosaur (that word repeats by proliticos and talking heads alike) when it is a misunderstood jewel in the industrial crown of the US.

Have they coasted in the past and gone for the profits over a prudent blend of stockholder masturbation and R&D infusion? Sure. Are they doing that over the past few years? Not. Are the plans perfect? Prolly not but given the disparities it's likely as good as it can be in the short term which, if successful, will permit self-reinvigoration of R&D for the long term.

Meanwhile the foreign automakes talk about their excellence to the wide applause of an ignorant and media (and, not surprisingly, eqaully ignorant public), while diligently blocking out imports and keeping the key R&D jobs on their soil -- all the while being responsive to such concerns here by unleasing mind-f__ing commercials showing beautiful design centers here in the US (which has nothing to do with the key R&D speding guarded at home). The US is just easy pickings for the Toyota and Honda given the uneven playing field. In spite of that, the US makers are doing more with less since US cars must struggle to offere comparable features at comparable price but with a sizeable cost disadvantage.

I'm not trying to make a case for us to bail-out the automakers, but I do believe, if nothing else, they should be given low-interest loans (comparable to the rates banks get) since a competitive auto industry is absolutely essential to out national security to (imo) and given that they are largely on the right longer track -- argueable, for sure, but it becomes hard to split out the impact of disadvantaged cost-structure vs quality and value since the reality of the existing playing field is necessarily baked into the reality of the current products and plans.

Unlike the airlines or a bank where folks keep flying and banking, I think it would be much harder to enable the auto industry to 'restructure' under bankruptcy without shutting down production and breaking the industry. Banks are not about real competitive differences (that's why that's all they talk about in commercials -lol-), they're just multiple outles for the same necessary services and they have little skill-base implications on the security of the nation. The auto industry is different, imho (no one wants a car with a long-term warrantee from a bankrupt company, etc.), so needs to be treated a such. It also has huge seconday/tier jobs drag (seven to one?), with very high engineering content ... the single most critical skill deficiency this nation faces in the future.

Of course if the automakers could reorganize to responsibly shed legacy costs (tough one and they've addressed this fairly responsibly given the givens), bring proven modern manufacturing approaches here (that they've already proven elsewhere), get fair access to foreign markets (hasn't happened), and wake up the American public to the greatly improved products, I'd say fine! But unions have diligently thwarted the first two, the government has ignored the third, and the media has poisoned the buying public by virtue of legacy-opinion momentum and sheer ignorance/incompetance. The government can help with all four -- loans notwithstanding.

Still, in the interim, it seems nuts not to help in some short-term but real win-win way while government *also* takes steps to level the playing field worldwide -- something the automakers have been asking for for many years now and which the government apparently has little interest or ability to do.

I'm no economist but putting an industry with such a broad and deep critical-skill pool in jeopardy is simply putting politics over common sense, imo.

Bail-out? No.

Loans? Yes. (the gov turned a profit on Chrysler in the '70s).

Long term government attention on the core problems? Oh, p-l-e-a-s-e!!!! (just don't hold your breath).

The media? Now there's an industry I wish we could put out of it's grand-whores-of-capitalism misery ...for the benefit of all mankind! ;-) ...no, I have no clue how aside from a return to the prudent FCC regulations on ownership-in-market, etc. And some due-dilligence in reporting wouldn't hurt either -- apparently things few seem to care about.

[KR]

A friend of mine went into foreclosure, due to some serious medical problems. All his life he has paid his bills on time,respectable life, family oriented man.He tried his best to stay afloat but the medical just kept piling up. He asked for help with his mortgage. The bank would have got their money, But no, they foreclosed on him, took the house resold it and made a killer profit on it, the guy is living in the projects in a slum home. Paid his taxes,fought for his country,You would think because he had hard times that people would show heart and compromise to fullest, BUT NO.......Why should we tax payers foot the bill for ANYONE! What do big companies do for the little guy besides suck every penny profit possible, then turn around and ask for help so they keep the heater working in their 60,000.00 pool or their 5 car garages Full! ........give me a break................... A wee bit off track here but it's the same thing in my opinion

[gr8snkbite]

All good opinions. I'm just frustrated at the whole damn thing. People are scared and not spending. Rightfully so, they stand the chance of losing their job, then their home, then their car, then their pensions, then their health..and BAM!
Meanwhile, these ungrateful CEO's and others are living high on the hog. And i don't just mean the auto industry....AIG, Citi, other private corp's...and of course "congress" are just as guilty. They've gotten spoiled off our labor, and then cut us loose, while they take nice fat bonuses and head out the door. I often wonder why McCain needs 7 homes. Hell, i only want to keep the ONE i have.

And it doesn't end there....parts manufacturers, aftermarket manufactureres, sales, etc. It's a freakin domino affect...be ready for the 30's all over again.

I'm sure many of those that lost their jobs would rather take a pay cut first, i would. But in order for that to work, banks would need to drastically reduce interest rates..i.e. not worry so much about sustaining their high profit margins.

We live in a world of cost and effect. The effect of your (CEO's) substandard business practices is costing me my job, home, pension, and a normal life.

Sorry for the vent...i'm aggrivated....

[KR]

Originally Posted by gr8snkbite

Sorry for the vent...i'm aggrivated....

Your not alone!...... Just before I read this I was with my neighbor .........he just got laid off (Good package) but he'll be another victim the CEO's could careless about!

[68fastback]

These are frustrating times and I'm probably the financially poorest (by far) of any of us here ...and it also gauls me that some of these execs (and athletes too, while we're grousing -lol) make the money they do.

On the other hand, I think it's dangerous to take a domestic-only view. If business were a zero-sum game, then even $$$ an executive doesn't get is more for each of us as the little guy, but that simply isn't the way it is, imo.

I'm not meaning to condone the great excesses we see everyday but what I think is much more important is the overall competitiveness of US businesses globally.

In that regard it's not a zero-sum game in two important ways:

-Successful businesses grow (invent!) the overall 'pie' by expanding the actual core and application of R&D and technology both as invention/skills/vitality and new product ...which benefits them, the country and the consumer -- business or individual alike depending on the product/service. (This is why Toyota uses Lexus to fund their technilogy food chain ...and it's a damn good car ...and then use that more broadly to compete here more successfully [just one exmple]).

-Globally competitive (best of breed) product by US corporations increase how much benefit the US derives from the overall global 'pie' more than the benefit that flows via subsidiary foreign units. (This is why the Japanese keep the prime jobs in Japan and suck profits from their foreign in-market manufacturing operations (like the US) back to support the $250K+ R&D/other-key jobs/skils in Japan, etc).

I'm generalizing, but while every country needs local business (both profit centers like mom & pop stores, construction businesses, doctors and services of all sorts; and cost-centers like schools and community services), it's government and the big corporations that have the wherewithall and course-staying power to take on and solve the big technological challenges that permit everything from NASA to nano-tech to deep medical R&D to move foreward , etc.

I'm not saying individuals don't matter -- that's what DOES matter! But it's the funding from corporate profitability that gives bright individuals the careers that enable achievement in a global arena, imo.

If we as a nation lose global competitiveness we'll be kicked back to the dark ages as a third-world has-been nation. How would we secure our nation without independently and globally succesful industries like aerospace and auotomotive (and othrers) ...critical skills to enable and support the basic security that permits our freedoms that it's all to easy to forget about but which actually have their deepest roots more in technology than in conventional bullets.

Without vibrantly competitive global businesses (including higher educational institutions) centered here in the US our ability to maintain the business leadership and attendant lifestyle we consider to be American is doomed, imho.

At least that's how I see it. (lol)

[Joe G]

Thanks Dan (as always).

You sum up what I was thinking... even if I didn't *know* that I knew it. LOL!!


Cutting executive pay hardly as any effect on an overall business - unless it's a 5 man shop and 3 are "executives" . IMO it's more of a symbolic gesture that helps ease the suffering of the "worker bees" that actually *do* feel the pain right now.

Funny thing is that Congress continues to vote itself pay raises while vilifying various company execs that testify on the hill about their pay.


-

[68fastback]

Originally Posted by Joe G

Thanks Dan (as always).

You sum up what I was thinking... even if I didn't *know* that I knew it. LOL!!


Cutting executive pay hardly as any effect on an overall business - unless it's a 5 man shop and 3 are "executives" . IMO it's more of a symbolic gesture that helps ease the suffering of the "worker bees" that actually *do* feel the pain right now.

Funny thing is that Congress continues to vote itself pay raises while vilifying various company execs that testify on the hill about their pay.


-

Exactly...

One of the numbnuts Congressmen asked Wagoner if he'd give up his pay for a $1 salary and he avoided the question. When they asked Mullaly, he said "I'm fine." [ gotta love the answer] ...so 30 seconds later Mr. Numbnuts asked Mullaly again and he just repeated again without changing his expression one iota. But you could just tell he was dying to ask Mr. Numbnuts if he would take $1 in salary too. Wise of him not to speak tho, 'cause numbnuts is a politician who's not worth $1

Of course they also had to grandstand on the private jets they flew in on. Why didn't you sell it and fly a commercial flight -- yeah, 'cause they have nothing better to do just because they're going to visit our Numbnuts Congress who apparently have all the business accumen of a walnut -- maybe Mullaly should have gotten naked and self-flagellated in repentance!

Aerospace, automotive, computers -- three industries we must lead in to stay free! Biotech and a couple of others wouldn't hurt either, but without those three you can kiss our military superiority and all that goes with it goodbye in this nutty world.

That's something even a numbnuts Congressman shoul dunderstand they can't get from China thru Wallmart

[Carnut]

So it's ok if I keep my exhorbitant salary and huge bonuses I pay myself?

[Joe G]

Yes, as long as those fat envelopes keep coming to me as well.





-

[Alloy Dave]

Originally Posted by GT500KR

A friend of mine went into foreclosure, due to some serious medical problems. All his life he has paid his bills on time,respectable life, family oriented man.He tried his best to stay afloat but the medical just kept piling up. He asked for help with his mortgage. The bank would have got their money, But no, they foreclosed on him, took the house resold it and made a killer profit on it, the guy is living in the projects in a slum home. Paid his taxes,fought for his country,You would think because he had hard times that people would show heart and compromise to fullest, BUT NO.......Why should we tax payers foot the bill for ANYONE! What do big companies do for the little guy besides suck every penny profit possible, then turn around and ask for help so they keep the heater working in their 60,000.00 pool or their 5 car garages Full! ........give me a break................... A wee bit off track here but it's the same thing in my opinion

KR, I agree with you in concept...but one thing I'd like to add. I think it's important to understand the facts. One fact is that if any company goes bankrupt, we as taxpayers do pay for it in a number of ways.

1) If the pension funds fail, then the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation - A gov't enterprise) pays the pensions...and the taxpayers are funding that.

2) If the big 3 are out of business, guess what would happen to the price of any other car you buy...yes...it will increase due to less competition.

3) If you live in an area where autos are made/supported (in other words, suppliers exist there), you likely will see damage to local housing markets.

4) Unemployment will increase, and the payouts will come from gov't funds.

the list goes on and on. So sometimes we must think of the DIFFERENTIAL costs between two alternatives.

I'm still with you as you see in my post...but just pointing out a few other factors.

I think there will be significant short-term pain if they fail. However, I think the long-term gain is that companies 10-20 years from now will be stronger because of it...they will learn a lesson about the fragility of business, satisifying customers, making good business decisions, etc.

Dave

[68fastback]

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

KR, I agree with you in concept...but one thing I'd like to add. I think it's important to understand the facts. One fact is that if any company goes bankrupt, we as taxpayers do pay for it in a number of ways.

1) If the pension funds fail, then the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation - A gov't enterprise) pays the pensions...and the taxpayers are funding that.

2) If the big 3 are out of business, guess what would happen to the price of any other car you buy...yes...it will increase due to less competition.

3) If you live in an area where autos are made/supported (in other words, suppliers exist there), you likely will see damage to local housing markets.

4) Unemployment will increase, and the payouts will come from gov't funds.

the list goes on and on. So sometimes we must think of the DIFFERENTIAL costs between two alternatives.

I'm still with you as you see in my post...but just pointing out a few other factors.

I think there will be significant short-term pain if they fail. However, I think the long-term gain is that companies 10-20 years from now will be stronger because of it...they will learn a lesson about the fragility of business, satisifying customers, making good business decisions, etc.

Dave

Well said, Dave.

[Alloy Dave]

Dan, I think you and I disagree a bit on the quality issue, but we're not 180 degrees apart I think.

I think that back 15-20 years ago the Japanese made MUCH better quality cars than the Big3 from a reliability/durability standpoint. My opinion is based on several things.

1) I was a mechanic at that time, and I saw firsthand the percentage of GM/Ford/Pentastar cars that came into my shop needing suspension parts before I could align them vs. a Japanese car. Same went with brakes...I never once saw a caliper stick on a Japanese car....then look at the Chrysler phenolic piston. I could go on and on...the only place I think the Big3 had an advantage in quality was the sheet metal robustness/anti-corrosiveness. I think about cars I consider awful quality, like the Dodge Omni, the Ford Escort, the Pontiac Fiero, the Chevy Cavalier...all of them crap IMO.

2) Consumer Reports data, which compiles actual repair statistics from thousands of owners.

3) My own personal history of owning many Japanese and Big3 cars, although admittedly I've mostly owned Japanese in recent history. The best cars I've owned in terms of reliability/durability have been Japanese...hands down. Admittedly American cars are better in other aspects, such as comfort, noise levels in some cases, performance, etc....I'm only talking reliability/durability here.

In spite of the above, I have images etched in my brain of Big3 CEOs 10 years ago saying that there was a "perceived" quality difference...their form of denial IMO.

However, given the above, the gap has been made much closer in the past 15 years or so... to the point where the difference IMO is about 1/5 what it was back then. CR data still shows differences. I tend not to pay attention to the "initial quality" data, as it focuses on things I don't care as much about, like panel gap size and carpet imperfections.

I know I'll catch heat for this post, but it's the way I see it. For my everyday cars, I want something that suits my usage, starts every time, doesn't break down, and will maintain a higher portion of it's value over the life that I own it. The Mustang is the first brand new Big3 car I've bought in 15 years. It's a bit hard to judge the durability/reliability of this car since a) I don't drive it much b) I've modified it c) I'll likely never get the mileage high enough to wear I'll know about the durability.

This issue is far ranging, and there's no way to cover it all in a post on a forum. So many points about which cars truly are "American", supporting the US economy vs. sending money out of the country, domestic content laws, import/export tariffs......we could go on forever.

But I do like the Mustang.

I know you are very pro Big3 on this issue...hope my post doesn't cause too much grief in a Mustang forum.

[68fastback]

Originally Posted by Alloy Dave

Dan, I think you and I disagree a bit on the quality issue, but we're not 180 degrees apart I think.

I think that back 15-20 years ago the Japanese made MUCH better quality cars than the Big3 from a reliability/durability standpoint. My opinion is based on several things.

1) I was a mechanic at that time, and I saw firsthand the percentage of GM/Ford/Pentastar cars that came into my shop needing suspension parts before I could align them vs. a Japanese car. Same went with brakes...I never once saw a caliper stick on a Japanese car....then look at the Chrysler phenolic piston. I could go on and on...the only place I think the Big3 had an advantage in quality was the sheet metal robustness/anti-corrosiveness. I think about cars I consider awful quality, like the Dodge Omni, the Ford Escort, the Pontiac Fiero, the Chevy Cavalier...all of them crap IMO.

2) Consumer Reports data, which compiles actual repair statistics from thousands of owners.

3) My own personal history of owning many Japanese and Big3 cars, although admittedly I've mostly owned Japanese in recent history. The best cars I've owned in terms of reliability/durability have been Japanese...hands down. Admittedly American cars are better in other aspects, such as comfort, noise levels in some cases, performance, etc....I'm only talking reliability/durability here.

In spite of the above, I have images etched in my brain of Big3 CEOs 10 years ago saying that there was a "perceived" quality difference...their form of denial IMO.

However, given the above, the gap has been made much closer in the past 15 years or so... to the point where the difference IMO is about 1/5 what it was back then. CR data still shows differences. I tend not to pay attention to the "initial quality" data, as it focuses on things I don't care as much about, like panel gap size and carpet imperfections.

I know I'll catch heat for this post, but it's the way I see it. For my everyday cars, I want something that suits my usage, starts every time, doesn't break down, and will maintain a higher portion of it's value over the life that I own it. The Mustang is the first brand new Big3 car I've bought in 15 years. It's a bit hard to judge the durability/reliability of this car since a) I don't drive it much b) I've modified it c) I'll likely never get the mileage high enough to wear I'll know about the durability.

This issue is far ranging, and there's no way to cover it all in a post on a forum. So many points about which cars truly are "American", supporting the US economy vs. sending money out of the country, domestic content laws, import/export tariffs......we could go on forever.

But I do like the Mustang.

I know you are very pro Big3 on this issue...hope my post doesn't cause too much grief in a Mustang forum.

No grief here, Dave ...the only point I'd take issue with is Consumer Reports. Just as in other things, there's a halo-effect. In CR's annual auto assessment, they are *not* recording repair data. It's purely owner opinion -- about what they peceive they've experienced. It may be good data, but it might not be good information, understanding, knowledge or wisdom (the 5 tiers of learning).

Supposedly there have been shadow studies done that show that owners of certain import and high-end euro brands judge problems 'differently,' both in what they consider 'reportable' (to the same questions other respond to) and in terms of whether it affects their decision to rebuy, etc., and I think that may also be cause of what I consider misguided 'religion' that lingers in the media. For example, BMWs score much higher than their actual repair history indicate they should (cost -performance wise, I'll take a M-GT over my daughter's 325 any day, even tho the 325 handling is more compliant and forgiving, it's just too damn slow for $38K, imo)

Admittedly, Hondas and Toyotas keep running in the face of virtually no maintenance, but that certainly would never be something I would do (not maintain my car). They are largely uncomfortable too (for me). For example, when I've rented and gotten a Honda Civic to go down to the airport (a 2.5 hour trip), within the first 45 minutes, I'm in pain! Literally! My back hurts. I have no back problems. Where my knees rest against the door and/or console is not comfortable. The door armrests hurt your elbows. The accelerators on Japanese cars bother my ankle on long drives simply because there's not enough push-back -- you have to hold your foot up ...the human factors just suck, imo. Dunno, but I could never own one. The Camry was better, but that competes with the new Taurus on price, the latter being more comfortable and more spacious, imo. The Subaru Forrester was a total disappointment in that all surfaces were just too hard and uncomfortable and the storage area in back was like fuzz sprayed on a contoured block of hard-foam. Tho the I4 engine revved happily, the accelerator feel was typically Japanese and the initial response (from a start, an automatic) was so overly non-linear as to be dangerous, imo. I don't get it. Who enjoys that? Clearly some do! Not I.

Who wants a car you can drive into the ground without prescribed maintenance but which is uncomfortable (or downright painfull). I wouldn't want it for a day let alone 100,000 miles. I can honestly say the only modestly priced import I've driven and liked was a Hyundai Santa Fe and I was surprised. Tho the seats had typically import-deficient thigh support, it was otherwise responsive, comfortable and functional. The Koreans have done well.

My friend in NJ bought a new Honda Accord(?) super-duper edition (278HP) last year (can't recall the model name). It is the first Honda I've ever driven for any distance that was actually comfortable. It also weights almost just shy of 3850lbs and he gets about 24 mpg highway. My '93 Taurus wagon gets 31 highway and 26 around town, year after year! And his Honda cost over $35K (I'd much rather have a M-GT -lol-). Residual values are overrated when you have to overpay up front, trading dear $$ for inflated $$. Ask Shelby Dude about the Honda and Toyota residual values game in terms of actual time-value of money spent per month. I think it must be a 'religious' thing -- and one I just don't believe in.

On the other hand, the Fusion I rented just made me smile. I just think why buy a Civic (or maybe even an Accord) when you can have this Fusion? You've met me, I'm not small but not especially large or especially tall (6'/215lb). I'd like to see any import match the Fusion on total cost-performance, comfort and human-factors competance.

My point is that perception is a powerful thing ...and it lags ...and the imports, which admittedly once had a huge edge (maybe back when you were wrenching?), may no longer have it across the board -- or at all. Given the cost-structure differences, it's amazing to me the domestics are as competitive as they are given momentum is roundly against them.

Aside from the CR rating thing, I can see how others can have opinions regarding the imports scoring highly on reliability, but I can't accept that that's value. I'll admit that a $35K Honda that gets, at best, 24 mpg highway can still present value because it runs well *and * is comfortable (my friend's), but that is the exception to my experience and I still have no desire to own one given other choices and the impact of the profits from my purchase leaving the USA. Clearly many couldn't care less about that ...no problem, everyone gets to vote with their $$$.

I listen to Click & Clack on NPR (yeah, Liberal Commie radio -lol-) ...it's the only show on NPR I listen to and they are Honda/Toyota-religious, but I like them and the show (car talk show). If someone calls in with a Toyota with a tranny that constantly pops out of gear in 4th it's considered an oddity, even tho I've heard at least a half-dozen folks call in with that same problem on their show, but if someone calls in with a 20 year old F250 with 300K miles on it, they assume he's BS'ing them and give him a hard time and tell him to junk it (and performance cars are treated like an insult to the planet). Yet, my brother, a salesman who used to drive a *lot* for many years, generally kept his Taurus wagons for 300-350K miles (about 6 years) ...with just normal maintenance. How bad is that?

This is the import bias I'm talking about. I think it will eventually abate if the domestics can continue to make progress and broadly match/surpass the imports and still be comfortable too (like the Fusion), but it will take much longer given pronounced media bias (I'm sure they'd say they're just relfecting the opinions of their audience -- should we expect different?). Let's face it, Honda and Toyota have image! Valid at a point in time but not nearly as valid anymore and in some cases totally invalid, imo.

Until opinion catches up with reality it will continue to be like that, imo. Like CNN talking about Obama -- he can do no wrong (can't wait for the corronation inauguration! -lol) because it's their opinion that's the way it is. To a large extent I think the Honda/Toyota altar is overly worshipped and festooned with flowers that are no longer fresh.

[KR]

I understand completely,I would say letting them fail could "possibly" create some serious financial instability(it's a gamble) but then again what isn't? I just think it's time for the big guys to take it up the rear for a change. This Living to the 9's is getting out of control, It is time to get back to the basics,Whatever that is?

[SLGT750]

I wished everyone would take responsibility for their own actions. The small business I had before and the one we have now relied on making good decisions and if I didn't I paid for it not taxpayers. If the business was slow I had to put money into it not the taxpayers. If I saw work was slowing I made adjustments and took a pay cut something I don't see these big wigs doing. Why don't they take some of their own money and put it back into the company! That's the responsible thing to do. I sick of people thinking it's right for the government to bail them out in times of trouble or more so making bad decisions and still take big bonuses and live extravacant lives. CEO and others including the workers need to take pays cuts or lose their jobs! It's like rewarding them for bad behavior that goes for AIG etc. Another thing it's time for American to get back to work, let's stop outsourcing jobs and put Americans back to work.
Same with the mortgage crisis. I pay my bills ontime and all the time, the people that are behind or over there heads are getting rewarded with lower interest rates and flexability. What about us responsible people? Kinda makes me want to stop paying my motgage so I can get a lower interest rate!

[rpretzel]

Originally Posted by SLGT750

I wished everyone would take responsibility for their own actions. The small business I had before and the one we have now relied on making good decisions and if I didn't I paid for it not taxpayers. If the business was slow I had to put money into it not the taxpayers. If I saw work was slowing I made adjustments and took a pay cut something I don't see these big wigs doing. Why don't they take some of their own money and put it back into the company! That's the responsible thing to do. I sick of people thinking it's right for the government to bail them out in times of trouble or more so making bad decisions and still take big bonuses and live extravacant lives. CEO and others including the workers need to take pays cuts or lose their jobs! It's like rewarding them for bad behavior that goes for AIG etc. Another thing it's time for American to get back to work, let's stop outsourcing jobs and put Americans back to work.
Same with the mortgage crisis. I pay my bills ontime and all the time, the people that are behind or over there heads are getting rewarded with lower interest rates and flexability. What about us responsible people? Kinda makes me want to stop paying my motgage so I can get a lower interest rate!

+1,000,000

[KR]

Originally Posted by SLGT750

Kinda makes me want to stop paying my motgage so I can get a lower interest rate!

I wish it were that easy

[SLGT750]

Originally Posted by GT500KR

I wish it were that easy

I know and I could never do that intentionally!