Ford Loses Record $12.7B in 2006

"Some O" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> SnoMan > wrote:
>
>> Or used better gas. Lower octane fuel cause valves to vibrate in seats
>> when it knocks even below a audible level. This leads to erosion and
>> togehter with higher exhaust temps from retarded spark timing needed
>> with lower octane fuel, leads to eventual burning of valves. They do
>> not tell you that though.
> Regular fuel is fine if the engine is designed for it.
> I notice some engines with a CR too high for regular octane specify
> regular can be used. Sure let it knock so we can adjust it, a sure way
> to the troubles you mention.
> IMO Toyota's Camry 3.5L V6 has too high a CR for the specified regular
> fuel.
> I Emailed Toyota about this and they said premium fuel is needed for
> best performance. We could add for longer engine life eh!

I doubt if using premium fuel in modern engines with knock sensors has a
significant effect on engine life (assuming the PCM has enough adjustment
range to compensate for the use of regular fuel). With the knock sensor
strategy, the PCM adjusts the timing until knock is detected and then
adjusts it back down to the point that the knock is eliminated - BUT - for
this sort of strategy to work it has to occasionally (based on some sort of
algorithm) advance the timing until knock is detected. I suppose it might be
that with premium fuel the engine never knocks under any allowed ignition
advance but I doubt it. Ford did recommend premium fuel for the 32V
Navigator, but the knock sensors do protect the engine when regular is used.
The 2V Expedition version of the engine was specified to run on regular
fuel, but the PCM would adjust the timing if you used premium fuel and
increase the performance slightly. I owned two Expedition, and in over 250k
miles of driving I never had a problem with spark knock. I did try running
premium for multiple tank fulls in my 1997 Expedition but I could never
detect any difference in performance or fuel economy. At least as far as I
was concerned, running premium was just a way to give the oil companies
another $0.20 per gallon.

I have noticed that many of the Japanese companies are now specifying
premium fuel but allowing the use of regular fuel. I think this is done for
two reasons - 1) By making premium fuel the primary specified fuel they can
advertise the slightly higher HP numbers achieved when using premium fuel
and 2) by specifying premium fuel in the manuals, the EPA will use premium
fuel when conducting the emission and fuel mileage tests. When using premium
fuel the cars get slightly better fuel economy. This is good for the CAFE
game but not really detectable in real world driving. I have seen it claimed
that for engines that have knock sensors, using premium will increase fuel
economy by 3% to 5%. I don't think must people keep careful enough records
to detect a .6 to 1.2 mpg increase. Companies that follow this strategy
(specifying premium fuel for mundane cars) are doing a disservice to many of
their Customers. The slight fuel economy improvements associated with the
use of premium fuel will not offset the much higher cost of premium fuel. I
doubt if the typical Camry driver can detect the difference in performance.
I doubt an "expert" could detect the difference without a dyno or a
stopwatch. So in the end, by specifying premium fuel Toyota, is screwing the
little blue haired little old ladies who are the primary Camry buyers. I
suppose if economy was the primary goal, they wouldn't be driving a Camry
(and for sure not a 3.5L Camry).

Ed

"Duane Totty" > wrote in message
. net...
> Ya'll are worring about the least thing just like our Governement! You
> need to ask yourselves. Why after Ford has posted a $12.7B dollar loss why
> are they still going to give Bonus and Compensation package to the upper
> Management as they're taking from the Workers I don't care which way you
> look at it the workers are the ones putting the Vehicle together, I would
> love to see Mr. Bill Ford come on down lets strap that fender to the side
> of that new Ford Shelby GT 500 with out scratching it. This is what ya'll
> need to be worried about asking why were loosing our Benifits as they keep
> theirs. ask yourselves why our pay has not gone up as fast as theirs. Ask
> yourselve how a company can file Bankrupcy an turn around and give their
> new CEO a $9M sign on bonus.

I agree that executive pay in this country has gotten out of hand. but so
has the salaries paid to entertainers, pro athletes, and some politicians.
It was my understanding that Bill Ford was not taking a salary. I think in
the end he realized that he was not smart enough to correct Ford's problems.
When looking for the guy to turn things around he had only a few choices -
promote one of the exiting upper management team - possible, but given the
current problems, it seem like this would not inspire outside investors, 2)
reach down into the ranks and pick some bright young guy - again this is not
going to inspire investors, 3) hire a "super star" from outside the company.
Obviously Ford decided to try #3. Having lived through my employer doing
this, I can tell you it has risks. At least in Ford's case they hired
someone that has some experience with manufacturing and unions and was
successful in turning around a major corporation. I feel certain that this
will work out better than hiring a loud mouthed self promoting cookie
salesman. However, when you decide to go with the "super star" strategy, you
are going to have to pay through the nose. If he is successful, then a $9M
signing bonus will seem like a bargain. If not, will it really matter that
Ford wasted $9M? And, at least so far Ford has not declared bankruptcy. I
doubt they will unless they are about to shut the doors. If Ford declares
bankruptcy, the Ford family will likely loose it's control of the company.

Ed

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:42:49 GMT, "C. E. White" > wrote:

>will work out better than hiring a loud mouthed self promoting cookie
>salesman.
with mising digits and hired on April Fools day?

> wrote in message news:45ba6ab1.18753191@localhost...
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:42:49 GMT, "C. E. White" >
> wrote:
>
>>will work out better than hiring a loud mouthed self promoting cookie
>>salesman.
> with mising digits and hired on April Fools day?

LOL. I do have a new appreciation of how history doesn't match reality. Too
bad nobody will buy my book.

Ed

Mr White...that was a very good write-up.

You should contribute more often....time permitting.

skimmer

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Some O" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> SnoMan > wrote:
>>
>>> Or used better gas. Lower octane fuel cause valves to vibrate in seats
>>> when it knocks even below a audible level. This leads to erosion and
>>> togehter with higher exhaust temps from retarded spark timing needed
>>> with lower octane fuel, leads to eventual burning of valves. They do
>>> not tell you that though.
>> Regular fuel is fine if the engine is designed for it.
>> I notice some engines with a CR too high for regular octane specify
>> regular can be used. Sure let it knock so we can adjust it, a sure way
>> to the troubles you mention.
>> IMO Toyota's Camry 3.5L V6 has too high a CR for the specified regular
>> fuel.
>> I Emailed Toyota about this and they said premium fuel is needed for
>> best performance. We could add for longer engine life eh!
>
> I doubt if using premium fuel in modern engines with knock sensors has a
> significant effect on engine life (assuming the PCM has enough adjustment
> range to compensate for the use of regular fuel). With the knock sensor
> strategy, the PCM adjusts the timing until knock is detected and then
> adjusts it back down to the point that the knock is eliminated - BUT - for
> this sort of strategy to work it has to occasionally (based on some sort
> of algorithm) advance the timing until knock is detected. I suppose it
> might be that with premium fuel the engine never knocks under any allowed
> ignition advance but I doubt it. Ford did recommend premium fuel for the
> 32V Navigator, but the knock sensors do protect the engine when regular is
> used. The 2V Expedition version of the engine was specified to run on
> regular fuel, but the PCM would adjust the timing if you used premium fuel
> and increase the performance slightly. I owned two Expedition, and in over
> 250k miles of driving I never had a problem with spark knock. I did try
> running premium for multiple tank fulls in my 1997 Expedition but I could
> never detect any difference in performance or fuel economy. At least as
> far as I was concerned, running premium was just a way to give the oil
> companies another $0.20 per gallon.
>
> I have noticed that many of the Japanese companies are now specifying
> premium fuel but allowing the use of regular fuel. I think this is done
> for two reasons - 1) By making premium fuel the primary specified fuel
> they can advertise the slightly higher HP numbers achieved when using
> premium fuel and 2) by specifying premium fuel in the manuals, the EPA
> will use premium fuel when conducting the emission and fuel mileage tests.
> When using premium fuel the cars get slightly better fuel economy. This is
> good for the CAFE game but not really detectable in real world driving. I
> have seen it claimed that for engines that have knock sensors, using
> premium will increase fuel economy by 3% to 5%. I don't think must people
> keep careful enough records to detect a .6 to 1.2 mpg increase. Companies
> that follow this strategy (specifying premium fuel for mundane cars) are
> doing a disservice to many of their Customers. The slight fuel economy
> improvements associated with the use of premium fuel will not offset the
> much higher cost of premium fuel. I doubt if the typical Camry driver can
> detect the difference in performance. I doubt an "expert" could detect the
> difference without a dyno or a stopwatch. So in the end, by specifying
> premium fuel Toyota, is screwing the little blue haired little old ladies
> who are the primary Camry buyers. I suppose if economy was the primary
> goal, they wouldn't be driving a Camry (and for sure not a 3.5L Camry).
>
> Ed
>

"SnoMan" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:48:05 GMT, "Jeff" > wrote:
>
>>Or got a lawyer.
>
>
> Or used better gas. Lower octane fuel cause valves to vibrate in seats
> when it knocks even below a audible level. This leads to erosion and
> togehter with higher exhaust temps from retarded spark timing needed
> with lower octane fuel, leads to eventual burning of valves. They do
> not tell you that though.
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com

Snoman. I use(d) the best gas I can buy at the local supply station. How
much better can it get...and where can I buy it?

skimmer

"Hawk" > wrote in message
reenews.net...
>
> "Mike Hunter" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stockholders know that when a company is not profitable and deductible
>> business expenses exceed income, that is a good time to make tax free
>> capital investments. Ford is spending billons on a half dozen new
>> products and modernizing its plants.
>>
>
> and spending billions in paying off 50,000 slacker union workers to quit

They agreed to the contract. And, just because they are union workers
doesn't make them slackers.

Get a clue.

Jeff

"Ford Tech" > wrote in message
...
> OMG that site is such HORSE****!! They are siting Fords efforts to become
> more diversified by adverstising in gay magazines and stuff??? Um, lets
> see where does ford advertise for jobs? The answer to that is clear. They
> advertise everywhere!!
>
> I can not believe anyone would take stock in that website, or that Ford is
> either for or against homosexual activities..
>
> Let's be honest about this for a moment though. What is the fastest
> growing group of people in the United States today? Its homosexual people,
> and what do they buy? Cars... Who makes those cars? FORD.

Bull.The fast growing group of people in the US are Latinos. As far as I
know, the rate of homosexuality is not any higher than before. What is
happening is a lot of closet doors are being opened. There are more gays
out, but they were always gay.

> Ok so now that we have that out of the way. Now, yeah they are advertising
> diversity in their workforce, but at the same time they are gaining
> another view on their vehicles. What do you want them to just forget about
> that group altogether? I wouldnt. If you ask me its just smart
> advertising.
>
> Those freakin homophobes with that website need to pull their heads out of
> their ass. Homosexuality is here to stay, might as well just get used to
> it. Some 50,000 or 100,000 people in America out of some 300,000,000
> people boycotting one auto maker is not going to make that big of a
> difference in their profits for it to matter who they support, or
> advertise with. In fact they wouldnt do it if they didnt think it would be
> profitable for their business.
>
> Lets discuss that for a second. On one hand you are ****ing off about what
> maybe 1,000,000 radical homophobes, and on the other hand you are pleasing
> about 5-6,000,000 homosexuals? So where is the downside to supporting
> homosexuality? From where I sit, there isnt one.

Not only are they pleasing homosexuals (and bisexuals), but they are also
pleasing others who believe in the live and let live philosophy. Don't
forget, there 5-6M homosexuals have lots of brothers, sisters, spouses and
kids.

Jeff

> Ford Tech
>
>
> "Old Man" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> Ho here http://www.boycottford.com/
>>
>> nospam wrote:
>>> Whay do you say that?
>>>
>>> "Old Man" > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>
>>>>It might have something to do with the boycott. Ford is a faggot loving
>>>>supporter of queers.
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>January 25, 2007
>>>>>
>>>>>By Nick Bunkley
>>>>>New York Times
>>>>>
>>>>>DEARBORN, Mich., Jan. 25 - The Ford Motor Company had the worst year
>>>>>in its history in 2006, losing $12.7 billion and suffering sharp
>>>>>erosion of its share of the United States auto market.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ford lost $5.8 billion in the fourth quarter alone, the company
>>>>>reported today. In the same period a year earlier, it lost a
>>>>>comparatively trivial $74 million.
>>>>>
>>>>>The company took in $160.1 billion in revenue in 2006, 9 percent less
>>>>>than in 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ford's full-year loss, equivalent to $6.79 per share, far exceeded
>>>>>the $7.39 billion it lost in 1992, the worst previous year in its
>>>>>103-year history, and it even surpassed the $10.6 billion loss posted
>>>>>by General Motors in 2005. But it is still short of the $23.5 billion
>>>>>that G.M. lost in its worst year, 1992.
>>>>>
>>>>>Most of Ford's red ink in 2006 came from the cost of shrinking and
>>>>>reorganizing the company, buying out workers and writing down asset
>>>>>values. Those charges accounted for $9.9 billion of the full-year loss
>>>>>after taxes. But Ford's day-to-day business did very poorly as well,
>>>>>with a loss of $2.8 billion on continuing operations, compared with a
>>>>>$1.9 billion loss in 2005.
>>>>>
>>>>>The figures were an unwelcome surprise to many Wall Street analysts,
>>>>>who on average had forecast a loss of about $2.5 billion for the year,
>>>>>excluding restructuring charges and other costs that Ford considers
>>>>>one-time items.
>>>>>
>>>>>Still, Ford's stock price ticked upward in morning trading, gaining
>>>>>about 20 cents a share to trade near $8.40 a share at midday, roughly
>>>>>where it was a year ago. The stock has been rising since mid-December,
>>>>>in part because gasoline prices have eased a bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ford's woes are greatest in North America, where its automotive
>>>>>operations lost $6.1 billion before taxes, and sales revenue fell by 14
>>>>>percent to $69.4 billion. The North American losses, four times as bad
>>>>>as the year before, more than wiped out profits from automotive
>>>>>operations overseas.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jonathan Steinmetz, an automotive analyst at Morgan Stanley, called
>>>>>those results "terrible," noting that the North American figures
>>>>>represent a loss of $4,700 on every vehicle sold.
>>>>>
>>>>>"The best we can say for the quarter is that it's over," Mr.
>>>>>Steinmetz wrote in a note to clients this morning.
>>>>>
>>>>>The fourth quarter of 2006 was the first full earnings period for Ford
>>>>>under its new chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, who was hired away from
>>>>>Boeing in September. With Mr. Mulally at the helm, Ford took the
>>>>>unprecedented step of pledging nearly all of its United States assets,
>>>>>from its factories to its blue oval logo, as collateral to borrow more
>>>>>than $23 billion.
>>>>>
>>>>>The financing leaves Ford with access to $46 billion in cash, although
>>>>>it expects to burn through $17 billion by 2009. In addition, the
>>>>>interest that Ford must pay will most likely drive down earnings from
>>>>>automotive operations even more in 2007. But the company's chief
>>>>>financial officer, Don R. Leclair, said Ford's overall results will
>>>>>be "substantially better" this year.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mr. Mulally insisted repeatedly today, on a conference call with
>>>>>reporters and analysts, that Ford's effort to overhaul itself, known
>>>>>as the Way Forward, is on track. But to outside observers, the
>>>>>company's financial results have yet to give any sign of progress,
>>>>>and Ford concedes that its market share will continue to slide at least
>>>>>through September.
>>>>>
>>>>>"We began aggressive actions in 2006 to restructure our automotive
>>>>>business so we can operate profitably at lower volumes and with a
>>>>>product mix that better reflects consumer demand for smaller, more fuel
>>>>>efficient vehicles," Mr. Mulally said. "We fully recognize our
>>>>>business reality and are dealing with it. We have a plan and we are on
>>>>>track to deliver."
>>>>>
>>>>>About 40 percent of Ford's hourly workers - some 30,000 employees
>>>>>- have agreed to leave their jobs this year in exchange for buyout or
>>>>>early-retirement packages, and the company is also shedding about
>>>>>14,000 salaried positions. Those cuts, along with plans to close nine
>>>>>plants by the end of next year, are part of the Way Forward plan, which
>>>>>is meant to return the company to profitability in North America by
>>>>>2009.
>>>>>
>>>>>In 2006, Mr. Mulally said, Ford cut its annual structural costs by $1.4
>>>>>billion. The restructuring plan calls for shaving off another $3.6
>>>>>billion within two years.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ford's financial deterioration has caused something of a brain drain
>>>>>at the company, and the arrival of Mr. Mulally has been expected to
>>>>>prompt some other executives to leave as well. Despite its huge losses,
>>>>>Mr. Mulally acknowledged today that the company is considering offering
>>>>>bonuses to some executives to persuade them to stay on.
>>>>>
>>>>>"At the end of the day, our success going forward will depend on
>>>>>having a skilled and motivated team," he said, adding that a final
>>>>>decision would be made in the next few months.
>>>>>
>>>>>The move could backfire by making unionized workers more resistant to
>>>>>the concessions that Ford wants from them to become more competitive.
>>>>>Ford did not pay any bonuses in 2005, when it made $1.44 billion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ford expects to lose its grip on second place in the American market
>>>>>sometime this year, when it is overtaken by Toyota. Ford's market
>>>>>share has fallen to 17.5 percent last year, from 25.7 percent a decade
>>>>>ago. By the end of the year, Ford's internal projections show that
>>>>>the company may even fall to fourth place, behind Toyota, the Chrysler
>>>>>unit of DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, the market leader.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mr. Mulally caused a stir in Detroit last month when he flew to Tokyo
>>>>>to meet with Fujio Cho, the chairman of the Toyota Motor Company. Mr.
>>>>>Mulally said he asked for Mr. Cho's advice on ways to streamline
>>>>>Ford's manufacturing operations, and the that the two men had
>>>>>discussed cooperation on some technical matters.
>>>>>
>>>>>But Mr. Mulally could well have sought Mr. Cho's financial counsel,
>>>>>too, because the Ford loss for 2006 happens to almost exactly match the
>>>>>profit Toyota earned in 2005. That means there is a difference of more
>>>>>than $25 billion between the two companies' financial performances.
>>>>>
>>>>>The biggest blow to Ford in recent years has come from rising gasoline
>>>>>prices, which depressed sales of the big pickups and sport utility
>>>>>vehicles it depends on for profits.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C @
>>>>>http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It might have something to do with the boycott. Ford is a faggot loving
>>>>supporter of queers.
>>>
>>>
>

"Duane Totty" > wrote in message
. net...
> Ya'll are worring about the least thing just like our Governement! You
> need to ask yourselves. Why after Ford has posted a $12.7B dollar loss why
> are they still going to give Bonus and Compensation package to the upper
> Management as they're taking from the Workers I don't care which way you
> look at it the workers are the ones putting the Vehicle together, I would
> love to see Mr. Bill Ford come on down lets strap that fender to the side
> of that new Ford Shelby GT 500 with out scratching it. This is what ya'll
> need to be worried about asking why were loosing our Benifits as they keep
> theirs. ask yourselves why our pay has not gone up as fast as theirs. Ask
> yourselve how a company can file Bankrupcy an turn around and give their
> new CEO a $9M sign on bonus.

What is the alternative? Do you think the new CEO would have considered Ford
for a mere $250,000 per year? There are not that many CEOs who can run a
major company. And some of the ones who can are running into problems with
changing the dates on stock options. The reason why they are giving bonuses
and raises is that the upper management will leave for greener pastures. To
me, it seems that no one should get more than say 20 or 100 times what the
lowest-paid person in a company gets. So if a janitor gets $30k, then the
most someone should get is $600k to $3000k But the US corporate culture
doesn't allow that.

So the alternative is big pay for a few people or fewer people in upper
management.

Jeff

>
>
> --
> htchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtchtcht chtc
>
> Hot Totty's Creations
> 1957 Oval Type 1
> 1955 Ford F-1 Truck
> 1961 Sunbeam Alpine
> 1968 Ford F-100 Truck
> 1989 5.0 Mustang LX
> 1997 Ford F-150 Truck
> 2003 Ford F-250 Crew 4X4
>
>
>
>
> "Ford Tech" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Old Man" > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Old Man" > wrote in message
>>>> link.net...
>>>>
>>>>>It might have something to do with the boycott. Ford is a faggot loving
>>>>>supporter of queers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, right.
>>>>
>>>> I would rather give my business to Ford because they treat all people
>>>> as human.
>>>
>>> Even if they're not.
>>
>> That is YOUR opinion, please dont spread that homophobic crap on the rest
>> of us. I tell ya, you are about as smart and worthless as the KKK. I am
>> as straight as they come, but I have known both Homosexual men and women,
>> and they are the same as you and I, only difference is their sexual
>> preference.. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
>

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
link.net...

<...>

> I agree that executive pay in this country has gotten out of hand. but so
> has the salaries paid to entertainers, pro athletes, and some politicians.
> It was my understanding that Bill Ford was not taking a salary. I think in
> the end he realized that he was not smart enough to correct Ford's
> problems.

I would not say that he was not smart enough. I would say that he did not
have skills or talents or background that was needed. He was smart enough to
get out of the way, which is saying something.

And sometimes having someone come in from the outside can make all the
difference, even if someone from the inside would do the exact same things.

Jeff

<...>