Talk:Ford Motor Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ford Motor Company article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive #1


Contents

[edit] Owned by General Motors?

The article states Ford Motor Company is owned by General Motors. This is news to me. When did this buy-out happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.155.32.6 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

It's not owned by GM, I'm removing this. --Fr4gm0nk3y 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Financial hurdles

The last three paragraphs of this section don't seem to particularly represent a NPOV. Most of it seems to be simply slamming foreign manufacturers. A few sections in particular:

Paragraph 4: "Foreign manufacturers have used this to their advantage to generate the perception that their products 'hold value'. In fact, the consumer has saved money by purchasing the heavily incentivized domestically produced vehicle..." Seems like both are the opinion of the writer, and there is no source.

Paragraph 5: "[This has given Ford's] adversaries the opportunity to plant perceptions in the market place that foreign manufacturers [snip] deliver better value in terms of fuel economy, reliability, and build quality, when the reality is not close to the perception as evidenced the by strong sales of the 2005 Mustang." Planting perceptions sounds pretty malicious, and there is no source for the claim that the claimed planted perception is not true.

Paragraph 6: "Ford continues to respond to false perceptions. [lots of stuff about the economics of trade-ins]" Again, "false perceptions" without proof that they are false. The rest of the paragraph is more or less irrelevant to Ford's financial troubles.

I'm not even sure these three paragraphs belong in the "Financial hurdles" section, because they're not really financial problems as much as they are PR problems. I won't deny that a lot of the public perception problems that are facing Ford and GM are not entirely deserved at this point, but you also have to realise that they produced a lot of vehicles that had some serious problem in the last couple decades. Most of the problems may have been fixed, but those vehicles are still on the roads, breaking down with simply reinforces the perception of the vehicles being unreliable. It's hard to blame these so-called "planted" perceptions on foreign auto manufacturers.

I think these paragraphs should either be removed, or rewritten and moved to another section. Thoughts? --207.161.57.113 07:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - this article (along with the union commentary above on this talk page regarding Ford's strategy for survival and closure of certain US plants and opening of new plants outside the US) has getting far off target, in terms of neutral reporting, in the last month or two. T-dot keeps finding himself getting in trouble for being bold about reversions of nonsense and non-NPOV tripe, that keeps getting posted by persons with an agenda, who have turned the article into an editorial - especially the "Financial Hurdles" section. These posts are usually either against Ford "management" for closing US plants and opening production lines elsewhere, or against foreign automakers for "stealing" US jobs and returning the cash to Japan. Very non-neutral points of view. The whole article needs a good bold cleaning, removal of uncited claims, and a general awareness that the article should be about Ford and building cars - avoiding discussions of whether 9-11 or Fed Rate Hikes or bad management decisions put Ford into the current state of affairs. If a sentence or paragraph does not directly address Ford Motor Company as the prime subject, then it probably needs to go. Just my thoughts - But T-dot is not ready to go head to head (again) with the unionists and anti-globalists and Ford haters... --T-dot 15:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over Sales Figures vs Toyota

Some editors recently added some highly controversial content regarding sales figures - including or excluding Mazda sales in Ford's, and whether Ford was #2 or #3 versus Toyota, which may or may not have included Daihatsu sales in its figures. No references or citations were provided for this, and an anonymous ediotor placed a {disputed} banner on the article. This is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article as important as this one. It seriously damages the reputation of the Wikipedia in the eyes of researchers and new visitors who may be unaware of the nature of the present discussion. I have removed the offending material as an emergency action as best as I can. Please do not add controversial sales figures into the introductory paragraph. Just the facts please, and lets discuss sales figures and methods for calculating them here. I intend to remove the {disputed} banner as soon as I can get "approval" from the one who posted it, or in a few hours if there are no objections. Thanks. --T-dot 09:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. It's gone. -- KelleyCook 14:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Net Indicator

Someone should add a net indicator in the info box, in addition to the revenue indicator. The General Motors page has both a revenue and net indicator. I would add it but I don't know how to.

No problem ... done. It isn't hard to do this sort of thing. You can just go to the GM article, select "edit this page", select and copy the "net_income= ... " line from the GM article's infobox section, paste it into the corresponding infobox on the Ford "edit" page, and correct the numbers (if you know them) to match Ford's, and provide your source reference. All set now. --T-dot 21:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold Moves

Shouldn't something about this page be mentioned?-Giant89 15:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD?

Railer 568 see talk placed an AfD on the main article as seen here. This user is claiming to be an administrator (see categories at bottom of user page) but has only been editing for 2 days as seen here. This is highly irregular. In addition, the justification for the AfD is given here as:

Flawed and biased article that lacks vital qualities for an entry on Wikipedia - also for the fact that it is the worst car company in the whole fucking world and there's no point to it deserving an article. --Railer 568 17:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume that this is a "joke" and recommend "speedy keep", and some administrative disciplinary action for User:Railer 568. --T-dot 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - no sooner did I finish explaining my actions in reverting the AfD - that the User's page was cleared out, and he received an indefinite block [1] - so nevermind. --T-dot 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing image

Image:Ford2005CarLineUP Is neither a picture under any spelling I could imagine nor could I find the link to it in the source of the article to remove it. Can another pair of eyes look for it. A redlinked picture is not nice in the article. Agathoclea 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In both Australia and New Zealand, the Commodore and Falcon outsell all other cars

What does this mean? Best selling car in New Zealand is the Toyota Corolla, and in NZ Toyota outsells all other car manfacturers. See http://www.mta.org.nz/?id=1073&eid=435. Only when you add together a Ford Falcon and a GM Commodore, the Corolla is outsold. Since Ford and General Motors are different companies what is the logic here?

[edit] Wages

I think it would be interesting to restate the wages for assembly line workers ($5 / day in 1913) in current dollars ($103 in 2006), based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index inflation data.

Anyone know of a way of editing this so that it automatically updates? e.g. I'd like to add, in parentheses, "$XXX / day in current dollars," and have that value be valid next year, the year after, instead of just saying "$103 / day in 2006 dollars."

Thopper 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of Vintage Ford Motor Company Graphic Design

I'd like to add this to the main article external links.

http://graphic-design.tjs-labs.com/gallery-view?start=0&span=1000&sort=B&op=AND&advertiser=FORD+MOTOR

Feel free to take a gander.--Mycroft.Holmes 01:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I still don't think that a link would be appropriate, however, as external content doesn't add to the article but takes readers away from it. It's your site, so assuming you own the copyright and/or it has expired, why don't you upload a few selected ads to the WikiCommons instead? Femto 11:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

I can't believe the company started by such an open advocate of Nazism did not have a criticism section! So I started one.

I wrote about union intimidation, allegations of collaboration with the Nazi regime, and allegations of collaboration with the Argentine military junta (very factual ones, if you ask me). Sadly, there's a lot more topics to add to this section, like outsourcing, low wages or the numerous incidents between the company and Mexican unions. If anybody knows about this subjects, expand plz. --Lobizón 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm looks like someone already beat me to removing the statement " Ford is also an ardent supporter of the homosexual agenda." Oh well 208.248.33.30 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

~Speaking of which, isn't that worthy of at least a mention? I work for Ford and a major issue with customers involves the fact that Ford does publish advertising in Gay magazines...Looking through the correspondence received, approximately 45 of the first 50 were Customers saying they would not buy another Ford again due to Said fact. Ford's official Stance, though, is that they will continue to advertise to all customers, regardless of any personal differentiation.

I don't think so. Lots of companies advertise in those magazines, that doesn't make them pro-gay any more than advertising in Oprah! makes them pro-feminist. Davert (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Today I made a few minor tweaks to the criticism area. I don't think we need to soft-pedal facts that are established and part of the historical record by saying that only detractors claim them to be true. There's no question about Henry Ford's flagrant anti-semitism and while he ghost-wrote his propaganda, that doesn't excuse it; nor does his eventual retraction in the face of public pressure. The revisions shorten this section which I think is pretty good. As you can see from my prior comment I'm not "out to get" Ford but I also don't want to whitewash history or indicate that there is controversy where none exists. (If someone DID want to spend a few moments on research, they could also point to the very small number of people who actually got the $5 per day wage, whose real purpose was to get many more applicants than he had jobs, quite useful given his massive turnover and injury/death rates -- or his regulation of his employees' personal lives, enforced by unannounced house visits. But I didn't add these because I can't point to definitive sources at the moment.) Davert (talk)

[edit] An economy section

Is there an economy article or page?

Something that talks about fords economy over the ages and present economy. Potaaatos 13:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Power Behind the Plants

I've read through 90% of the Ford content and have yet to see anything regarding the Eastern Coal Company and it's contributions to Ford's assembly plants. At one point ECC was the only provider of coal for Ford's factorys. There is an immense history revolving around this Eastern Kentucky coal producer and it's relationship with Ford Motor Company.

Am I overlooking it?


So why don't you start writing about it? --Herne nz 00:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet Cars

The First Vehicles

Henry Ford insisted that the company's future lay in the production of affordable cars for a mass market. 'Beginning in 1903, the company began using the first 19 letters of the alphabet to name new cars. In 1908, the Model T was born.' 19 years and 15 million Model T's later, Ford Motor Company was a giant industrial complex that spanned the globe. In 1925, Ford Motor Company acquired the Lincoln Motor Company, thus branching out into luxury cars, and in the 1930's, the Mercury division was created to establish a division centered on mid-priced cars. Ford Motor Company was growing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.2.1.153 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Built Ford Tough

  • It's one of Ford's most recognized and long-running ad campaigns, and there's NOTHING on the article about it. Why?? WizardDuck 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firestone and Ford tire controversy

Firestone and Ford tire controversy was began in 2005. Since then, all mention of this controversy has disappeared from this article, except in the "see also" section. The Firestone and Ford tire controversy is a really bad article, with not one reference. I have suggested this article be remerged here.

We have found out that bridgestone employees have actively been editing both Firestone and Bridgestone, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#flink.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of merging the topic, which combines both Ford and Firestone, into the Ford article, why not edit the Firestone and Ford tire controversy article instead? Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article in general

This article contains a lot of great content. However its drowned out. At the very least I would like to removed the timeline and the autoracing/motorsport sections to seperate articles. And suggestions/objections. Mark83 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Proposal

[edit] Ford Motor Company and Ford (vehicles)

I propose to create a new article for "Ford (vehicles)" which will be for the Ford division. For two reasons, one the article size is 72KB which is well over the recommended limit. Secondly, is more aesthetic: though clearly an important piece, the Ford branded vehicles are not the sole purpose for the company, nor is it the only automotive division. In fact, the other seven automotive divisions of Ford Motor Company all have their own page, so Ford should also. I propose the article name "Ford (vehicles)" as the name of the division is Ford and their website is fordvehicles.com. So in line with the MOS, the page name should reflect those two items. -- KelleyCook 20:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all - the Lincoln and Mercury articles you mentioned are actually named Lincoln (automobile) and Mercury (automobile), not (vehicles) - so you want to call it Ford (automobile) for the Ford Brand, to be consistent with the others, and then link to the List of Ford vehicles page. Secondly, only a small portion of this article is actually devoted to specific Ford vehicles, so there is not much material to split off and move. That said, I do agree this article is far to large to be very useful. People have been expanding certain sections according to their POV. The vast majority of the article is devoted to the history of the company, and the worldwide operations, with sections about criticisms, etc. There might be some good cause to shorten the main article to some basic sectional summaries, with wiki-links to separate articles on topics such as the ubiquitous "Nazi/Hitler/Antisemitic connections", Union controversies, the corporate history, worldwide operations, and the General Corporate Timeline (where certain motivated editors keep adding non-sensical and non-notable launch dates and cancellations of their favorite vehicle lines indiscriminantly, along with the latest news updates, contrary to the intent (I created that section many months ago from the 100th anniversary book as a reliable source)). --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the article shouldn't be split into "Ford Motor Company" and "Ford (automobile)" or whatever, but into "Ford Motor Company" and "History of Ford Motor Company" Cavenba 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Split I was a lifelong Ford employe, a resident of Dearborn, and I'm a devoted Wiki fan and minor editor. I favor a split. The second article might be called Ford Products, to include the Ford Trimotor, byproducts of Rouge operations, and farm-related prodcuts. CoppBob 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. Do it now....--Herne nz 08:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am always hesitatant to support any split, espically splitting off controversial sections. Look what happened to the terrible #Firestone and Ford tire controversy article, which was originally split off from this article, then all reference to this article was completely deleted from this article.
Wal-Mart is probably the worst example of a split. From what I gather, two groups argued for months about creating a Wal-Mart controvery page. It was created Criticism_of_Wal-Mart, and now there are two competing articles: one within the Wal-Mart article, Wal-mart#Criticism and one with Criticism of Wal-Mart. These articles copy each other in content.
On the Firestone page, a probable sockpuppet of a Bridgestone employee, LucaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) split off the Liberian controversy section into another new article. Travb (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
That is fine, but irrelevant, and should be handled at that article. Merging Ford/Firestone controversy will not help with WP:NPOV and conflicts of interest or whatever. The intent of splitting an article is to shorten an overlong article by providing secondary related pages which are mentioned in the main article as a sort of sectional stub. The intent of merging is to bring together two short articles which say essentially the same thing. The Walmart#Criticism article section should have just one or two short summary sentences describing the issues in the most basic and neutral way possible, and a link provided to the detailed Criticism of Walmart article. The same sort of thing can be done with Ford Motor Company: the overlong sections which are not particularly required to define "The Company" but are needed for additional information should be briefly mentioned under a Section Header, with a couple of sentences and a link to the detailed article. As to the Ford / Firestone controversy - again a section Header, a sentence or two, and a link to the detailed article. The Ford Motor Company article is already absurdly long. DO NOT MERGE the Ford / Firestone article into Ford Motor Company - this will just make the overlong problem worse, and is contra-indicated in the Manual of Style --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments User:T-dot, where does it mention splitting in Manual of Style? I can't find it.
In the Wikipedia:Summary style, it states:
"This page in a nutshell: When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place." (emphasis my own).
(Oops - that's what I meant. I thought the Wikipedia Summary Style article was part of the overall Wikipedia Manual of Style, and was in fact easily linked to it from the TOC - but apparently not. Probably should be though. It does show up in the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles though, which is linked to within the MOS (and "is part of the Manual of Style"); and the rational for using Summary style is more clearly outlined there. Anyway I believe the "several paragraph summary" refers to a hypothetical single-topic article that has grown to pages and pages long; shortening it to a few key paragraphs outlining a summary, and sending the details elsewhere to "sub-topic" pages. By precedent, an overlong article such as this which has several major but totally independant topics of many paragraphs each, which together accumulate to several pages, can be similarly shortened with each topical section having just a few summary sentences, and with a "See xxx for more information" tag link to a separate article on the sub-topic. That way the main article does not seem to ramble on and on, requiring readers to scroll through many pages to get to the information they need. Also then the POV and other controversies can be taken "offline" to the subtopic pages rather than battled on the main page. Thanks. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
I need to create a several paragraph summary of the Firestone and Ford tire controversy. There is no such summary now, at all in the article, this page was split, then all mention of the controversy disappeared from this article. Travb (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Good! Thats what we need. Maybe just a few sentences though rather than several paragraphs - unless the paragraphs are just a couple of sentences each. It is proper and encyclopedic to mention that there is/was an issue between Ford and Firestone over (allegedly) defective tires, improper inflation pressures, the propensity of Ford Explorers to roll over during emergency maneuvers or whatever, etc., and then send the interested reader to the full article for more information. We need to think in terms of someone outside who perhaps wasn't "around at the time" wanting to go back and understand the complex issues. They can get a quick summary at the Ford Motor Company (and Firestone) articles (should be mirrors of each other), and the fuller details at the main article on the controversy. In any case, we need to guard against either glossing over the matters of fact, by either the pro/anti Ford/Firestone POV folks, and also avoid over-sensationalizing the controversy like a rag sheet, both of which harm the Wikipedia and the unaware reader. Our goal should be to openly educate, not to persuade or indoctrinate. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Go for it Potaaatos 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I find that there isn't enough information about the Ford brand in this article at all. Cavenba 20:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Motor Company and History of Ford Motor Company

I think the article shouldn't be split into "Ford Motor Company" and "Ford (automobile)" or whatever, but into "Ford Motor Company" and "History of Ford Motor Company" Cavenba 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In continuation, I think I should be split into the said articles because The size of "History" is too large. Also the time line in unencyclopedic. Either the "History" section needs to be toned down or they should be split. Cavenba 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have made a rough page for "History of Ford Motor Company" at User:Cavenba/Sandbox/History of Ford Motor Company History of Ford Motor Company. Tell me what you think. Cavenba 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I like it. History is a major part of any article, and since Ford is one of the leaders in making the modern automobile, they have a lot of history. The timeline section seemed a bit cramped though. Maybe you could add sections like in the main article.
—Michael 04:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Should there be any mention of the various prior Ford companies? Davert (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Model T

What do you think of expanding on model t? How many cars made, who bought it first, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.50.163 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the suggestion - but this should be covered at the Ford Model T article. Of course some brief notes of particularly strong interest on the topic of what is arguably one of the most significant vehicles in history that truly launched the Company into enormous success can be included in this article as part of the corporate history, but the significant details should be kept at the Ford Model T article for reference. That said - please feel free to Be Bold! and share your thoughts and suggestions and edits. You are always welcome to contribute here. If you mess up, there is always someone around who can assist you and fix any major blunders. Welcome aboard! --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a decent sized section about the Alphabet Cars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.214.39 (talk • contribs)

I think this article is way too big to think of adding sections right now Cavenba 20:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK fine - then please feel free to create a new article ... perhaps Ford Alphabet Vehicles?, and got to work on filling it in with the details and references. Sounds like a useful and notable article to me - tracking the Ford carlines from 1903 to the 1940's or whenever it was that the Model X theme was abandoned. There is probably even some material on this "way too big" article page that could be moved there. Just leave a link here saying something to the effect of "For more information on Ford's Alphabet-model cars, see Ford Alphabet Models" or whatever. By the way, someone else already started a Ford (vehicles) page, but it looks like the effort was abandoned - it is still basically a redirect back to this main article. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the same for History of Ford Motor Company, but it redirects to the history section. Cavenba 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of flagicons in brands

I do not think these are necessary, as they will cause future conflict. I have deleted them for now. If you think they should be put a back up: post your reasons here. Cavenbatalk to me 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Comments

The opening paragraphs on the page contain baised, opinionated, immature, and slanderous comments. They should be removed and the person who wrote them should be restricted. See the highlighted areas in bold below:

Ford also recently purchased the Rover name (which is no longer in use) to keep others from using it to capitalize on Land Rover.for this reason ford is the worst vehicle on the road. this whole entire article is telling the truth except for every part.

Henry Ford's combination of highly efficient factories, highly paid workers, and low prices revolutionized manufacturing and came to be known around the world as Fordism by 1914.once apon a time there was a princes who loved ford. she changed her mind when she drove one of there cars. they are the worst handling vehicle on the road.


Even the grammar is spelling is wrong. Unbelievable.

Aarovex 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's blantent vandalism... Cavenbatalk to me 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aston Martin

Aston Martin has been sold. Some one research and edit. :) Pautlorius 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Partially sold. Ford maintains a minority share interest in Aston Martin - approximately 8.3% ($77 million in "preferred stock", on a total valuation of $925 million). [2]. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.myspace.com/fordlemons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cboh4x4 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stock Symbol

Isn't Ford's stock symbol 'F'? Black Harry (T|C) 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ford Focus

The current page lists the ford focus as the 'most popular compact car', when in fact, the most popular (by sales volume) is currently the Corolla. Since its induction in 2000, it has never been the best selling automobile in its class in America. http://www.suscon.org/brakepad/pdfs/Final_CuUMP_Report_12-12-06.pdf (Go to page 7) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaweiLi1 (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiaweiLi1 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Hybrid

Actually, in the 2000's alone, there were six companys to put out hybrid designs before Ford. By automotive market does the article mean "the American automotive market"? --Cynops3 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter since Honda and Toyota were in the US market first with hybrid designs. Perhaps they meant crossovers in which case the Mazda-engineered Ford Escape with Toyota-type hybrid system would be the first hybrid crossover, for what it's worth. Personally I don't feel it's a distinction worth making. Davert (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hybrid Part 2

No Toyota technology was used in the production, design, or manufacturing of the Ford Escape Hybrid.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2005/11/is_ford_innovat_1.html

Stating that licensing Toyota's is a step toward making their system an industry standard is uninformed and incorrect.

See cite [28] in the main page for reference to what I'm stating here.

[edit] Galaxy no longer built at the VW plant in Portugal

Global markets > History > Europe: In 2006, production of the Galaxy at the Autoeurope plant near Setubal ceased, and the following generations of Galaxy (starting with the generation which is current at the time this comment was added) are being manufactured at the Limburg plant in Genk, Belgium. Costeau 23:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Finances Section Deleted

I deleted the separate finances section that was previously section 7. It was completely redundant, as all the information was covered in the previous sections. The article is still not chronologically or redundancy kosher, but at least it isn't nearly as redundant. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Neutral Point of View on European car models?

The seven paragraphs at the end of the History subsection of the Europe section, all added at once by one user ('Tripod86'), from "Ford Europe has broken new ground with a number of relatively futuristic car launches" to "over the years it has become more refined, spacious, better-built and more enjoyable to drive", read more like a company PR release than a neutral point of view.

There are no references for the claims like "hugely popular" , "levels of style, comfort and refinement which were almost unmatched", "massively popular", "took the large family car market to new heights in terms of build quality, refinement, comfort, equipment, driver appeal and value for money" and so on. This seems to be a personal and highly adulatory opinion. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed! Act? Davert (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] European & American

In many cases Ford motor company is considered to be a European manufacturer aswell as a American manufacturer. There are many Ford models that are made for the European market only, e.g Ford Ka, Ford Fiesta. And Henry Ford had come from Ireland (At that time part of the UK), which means the company was also established by a European man.

80.192.246.56 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Falcon-Eagle200780.192.246.56 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are also many GM models made for the European market. Also, the Ka and Fiesta were, if I am not mistaken, both designed in Asia. The nation of origin of Henry Ford is not particularly relevant since all his cars were engineered while he was in the US. Is Nissan now European because it is effectively run by a Frenchman? Or is it Japanese because it was founded in Japan? Davert (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical inaccuracy

Henry Ford emphatically did NOT provide higher wages. What he did was ADVERTISE higher wages. Darned few people got the "$5/day wage" -- the number of requirements for that, including occasional surprise inspection of the household, was enormous. The advertisement of the high waves brought huge numbers of workers that could be given the normal low wages. Might this not be removed? Davert (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no objection I took out "highly paid workers." I'll add what I should have said earlier, which was that the main point of removing the need for craftsman was to be able to pay people less - by being able to fire people at whim, with any number of people waiting outside the gate. Also -- why is no mention made of the early subcontracting of large portions of the cars? The Dodge Brothers did this before going off on their own; but they are only mentioned as early investors. Davert (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UPDATE TO ARTICLE REQUIRED

Europe

History

"It owns the Jaguar and/or Land Rover car plants in Britain; Ford's former Halewood Assembly Plant was converted for production of the Jaguar X-Type and currently also assembles Land-Rover's Freelander 2. Jaguars are also assembled at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham while the rest of the Land-Rover range is assembled at Solihull, near Birmingham."

Not any more it doesn't!

Brands

Marques

"Overall the Ford Motor Company controls the following operational car marques: Daimler, Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercury, and Volvo; Daimler and Volvo are currently part of the Premier Automotive Group."

Daimler/Jaguar/Land Rover: Not any more it doesn't!!

Can anyone explain the weird references to 'Daimler', especially the second one re. PAG please?

91.108.20.100 (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Ford has the right to the Daimler name as a car marque. They've been nice to Mercedes in not using it, though they could have adapted, say, a Jaguar to become a Daimler. I don't recall how they got it, but they got it. As for Jaguar and Land Rover, yes, they are now part of Tata - as of today.Davert (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick read of Wikipedia reveals that the Daimler marque that Ford owns is the British Daimler marque, it came into their ownership with the Jaguar Cars company in the 1980s. It is not related to the German Daimler company. Jaguar had acquired the British Daimler Motor Company in 1960, and used the Daimler marque on many different vehicles, including the Daimler Super Eight of 2005. Historically, the British Daimler company was founded in the 1890s, by a British engineer, to build cars using British-built Gottlieb Daimler-designed engines. Gottlieb Daimler, who pioneered the internal combustion engine, independently co-founded the German Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft company, which has evolved through Daimler-Benz and DaimlerChrysler to become today's Daimler AG. There are still two Daimler's, the British marque, which Ford owns, and the German automotive group. -- de Facto (talk). 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect the British Daimler name was sold to Tata with Jaguar. A quick look at the Trademark Office http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=msmms4.2.7 shows identical trademarks in automobiles from both British and German outlets. Jaguar's is shown as live as is Daimler, AG's. This isn't a particularly important thing anyway since (a) NOBODY makes cars under the Daimler brand, and unless someone does the trademarks will presumably expire, and (b) Ford sold Jaguar and Daimler was registered by Jaguar. Perhaps it should go into Tata's listing but for Ford, Daimler is now irrelevant. Davert (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaguar still use the Daimler marque. You can buy a Daimler Super Eight today, see their Daimler website: www.daimlercars.com. -- de Facto (talk). 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right. I did just see a note in an article on the purchase of Tata that Daimler was indeed included with the sale of Jaguar. Davert (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

www.daimlercars.com contains the phrase "Daimler is a division of Jaguar Cars." of course! MP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.190.55 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

'Daimler' in the U.K. is part of the Jaguar Cars business, just sold to TATA of course; but realistically Daimler is not an "operational car marque" in the same way as Volvo (cars) is! So please delete the weird references to both 'Daimler' and PAG - as neither of them really exist operationally. This discussion really reminds me of Monty Python: Daimler/PAG is a dead parrot!

HISTORY: "Ford's former Halewood Assembly Plant was converted for production of the Jaguar X-Type and currently also assembles Land-Rover's Freelander 2. Jaguars are also assembled at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham while the rest of the Land-Rover range is assembled at Solihull, near Birmingham." This paragraph can be deleted as all three plants belong to TATA Motors!!!

91.110.190.55 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound unkind to Ford as I can still remember meeting friendly guys from Ford of Europe at the BL showrooms in Piccadilly, London in 1973 but the following phrase in the introduction needs to be re-visited: "Ford now encompasses many global brands, including Lincoln and Mercury of the U.S., and Volvo of Sweden. Ford also owns a one-third controlling interest in Mazda." I would dispute "many" in favour of 'some', to put it mildly? I don't think either Lincoln or Mercury can be counted as anything other than as 'American' brands....

I suggest that only Volvo itself can be counted as Ford's additional [wholly-owned] global brand - do you agree? I know it is Swedish, but is being assembled in more than one country. Can you tell me exactly where Lincolns and Mercurys are being made/sold these days please?

91.110.190.55 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fordism again

This quote contradicts the Fordism page: "Henry Ford's combination of highly efficient factories and low prices revolutionized manufacturing and came to be known around the world as Fordism by 1914." Fordism there is described in a few ways but two key components are standardization of product and replacement of craftsmen with low-skill labor, neither of which is mentioned in this sentence. Would anyone care to revise that sentence, other than me?Davert (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J.D. Power

I just tried to verify the J.D. Power thing and found that Ford does not have an especially high ranking. Can someone else tell me whether I'm missing something? http://www.jdpower.com/autos/car-ratings/ Davert (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The statistics shown on the Ford article are both linked directly to their source articles. What's the problem here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph update

I have updated the opening paragraph to the following; the changes are shown in bold (below);

"Ford Motor Company is an American multinational corporation and the world's third largest automaker based on worldwide vehicle sales. Based in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, the automaker was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. Ford's overseas business encompasses only one truly global brand Volvo of Sweden other than Ford itself, but it also owns a one-third controlling interest in Mazda of Japan and a smallholding in former subsidary Aston Martin of England. Its former UK subsidaries Jaguar and Land Rover were sold to Tata Motors of India in March 2008, both companies having been through many changes of ownership in the recent past. Lincoln and Mercury are also Ford's leading brands in the USA, but not in the rest of the world. Buying, investing in and selling small European car companies has been a costly exercise for Ford and is unlikely to be repeated as Ford concentrate on their USA businesses."

Without going into too much detail,this reflects only some of the recent actions necessary for Ford to avoid possible 'bankruptcy', which a senior Ford executive has stated "is not an option" for Ford. (No doubt Jaguar/Land-Rover benefited from their years of Ford's owernship.)

As longtime observer and participant in the UK industry, I follow Ford's changes with interest, especially as I do have my own copy of Robert Lacey's "Ford" published in 1986 - at 778 pages!

I can only wish FoMoCo the very best of luck in restructuring and hopefully NOT following the example of our local equivalent in Birmingham, England the Austin Motor Company, Longbridge!

91.110.150.12 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)}


Why include the term "only". It sounds like they should, necessarily, have more. That's not the case. Why not simply say "Ford and Volvo are both global brands, while Lincoln and Mercury are sold primarily in the North American market. Ford also owns a 1/3 interest in Mazda, and the two companies share a number of platforms.

[edit] Davert/De Facto HERE IS THE VERY LAST WORD ON THOSE OLD EX-FORD BRAND NAMES

Monday, March 31, 2008

Tata gains marque coveted by China

Christine Tierney / The Detroit News

Tata Motors Ltd. comes away from its $2.3 billion deal with Ford Motor Co. with an array of European nameplates. In addition to Jaguar and Land Rover, the Indian automaker has acquired the rights to the Rover name coveted by Chinese manufacturers, the old Lanchester brand, and it shares the name Daimler with German automaker Daimler AG. Tata executives have not disclosed plans for all the brands.

So far, they have stressed that they will respect the identities of Jaguar and Land Rover, two of Britain's stateliest marques, and keep the carmakers separate from Tata's more down-market vehicle operations.

Auto experts say Tata is likely to explore uses for the other brands. Jaguar has considered setting up a separate Daimler line of cars above the Jaguar range, and that idea still has merit, said Wesley Brown, a partner at Iceology, a Los Angeles-based marketing consultancy.

Luxury car sales are expected to outpace the overall market because the number of affluent people is growing, he said. "A Daimler brand above Jaguar would have tremendous potential."

Ford acquired the Daimler name when it bought Jaguar in 1989 but sold Daimler AG rights to the name last year after the German automaker split from Chrysler. Both the brand, pronounced DAME-ler in Britain, and the German company trace their origins to motor car inventor Gottlieb Daimler. In 1893, a British businessman bought the British rights to Daimler's engine -- and Jaguar acquired the marque in 1960.

Because of longstanding ties between India and Britain, Tata probably has a good grasp of the brands' identities and potential, Brown said. "As an Indian company, they've probably got the second-best knowledge of Britain and its people after the British."

As Tata seeks to grow beyond its home market, it may seek to market cars under a Rover badge.

Ford acquired the Land Rover brand and later the Rover brand from BMW, which owned the British carmaker from 1994 to 2000.

In 2005, after Rover collapsed, China's Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. and Nanjing Automobile Group bought some assets but not the brand name.

When Ford negotiated the sale of Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata, its executives felt that Rover belonged with Land Rover, said Ford spokesman Tom Hoyt. "It made sense for those nameplates to be sold with those brands," he said.

MP 91.110.150.12 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of comments, the irony is that Shanghei bought the so-called "intellectual property rights" to the Rover car range, wanted to buy the name "Rover" but Ford refused to sell it to them; TATA Motors effectively get the "Rover" marque for free along with the Land-Rover business!91.108.6.32 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error in largest family owned business?

Wal-Mart is the largest family owned business, according to: http://www.familybusinessmagazine.com/topglobal.html Any objections to my doing the honors? Davert (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean in this country or worlwide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.156 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ford music video?

On the ford music video in american idol today (5/14/08) it had a edge shaped crossover but it had the flat 3 bar grill not the metal 3bar grill? Did I just see bad or was this a new cocept I dont know about. S. T. H. 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] link to Jaguar

the links to Jaguar get you to the animal, and not to Jaguar Cars as it should. Clerambj (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)