Hauling the Trash (Talk)

If there's been one upside to the collapse of full-size pickup truck sales this year, it has been the way it has served to exponentially increase the amount of semi-entertaining trash talk spouted by manufacturers in the segment. And Ford Motor Company has led that charge, using the introduction of its substantially improved 2009 Ford F-150 as the club with which to pummel the competition.

Ford has not gone so far as to say that the use of coil springs for the rear suspension is totally girly — but it has come close. This, naturally, is a swipe at the 2009 Dodge Ram, the first full-size pickup to use those newfangled springy things in the modern era. "We don't build coffee shop trucks," sneers George Pipas, Ford's usually mild-mannered sales guru. Oh no, you didn't say that!

Ford has not gone too far as to say explicitly that the Toyota Tundra is wimpy. But it has gleefully shown everyone with a pair of eyeballs that the Toyota's bed gets all kinds of giggly and agitated on Ford's rugged route in Arizona where it tests durability. Further, Ford notes that the skinny bolts that hold the Tundra's leaf springs in place are no match for the thick, manly items used to perform this function in the F-150.

So now, after all the calculated jabs (and several months' delay to allow dealers to unload a big backload of '08 F-150s at enormous discounts), the new, thoroughly revised (and thoroughly tough, manly and unwimpy) 2009 Ford F-150 full-size pickup truck is going on sale as you read this.

And, you know what? It's pretty good.

All V8s! For Now!
Based on our one-day drive on and around Ford's proving grounds in Romeo, Michigan, we can say the 2009 Ford F-150 is a fine entry in the pickup truck market that will grab at least its share of the projected 1.6 million sales in the pickup segment this year. (At 1.6 million units, the pickup market is down nearly a million from its peak in 2004, which should explain some of the sniping and back-biting as everyone squabbles over the scraps.)

First off, Ford gets to say that its entire lineup of 2009 F-150s — from the lowliest work truck with a standard cab to the Lincoln-style Platinum-edition luxury truck — is powered by a V8.

The 4.2-liter V6 bites the dust for '09 and is replaced by last year's midlevel engine — the 4.6-liter V8 with two valves per cylinder. This engine makes 248 horsepower and 294 pound-feet of torque. Of course, we had to specifically ask Ford officials for a drive of the base-model F-150 equipped with this engine. Once they dug one up and we drove it, we found out why it wasn't part of the regular test-drive program. Trying to move 2.5 tons of truck, the base V8 has its work cut out for it, especially with a four-speed automatic transmission (no manual transmission is offered). This engine might not be a V6, but it isn't much of a V8, either.

Step up, my friend, to the 4.6-liter V8 with three valves per cylinder and you get a boost of 44 hp and 26 lb-ft over the base V8. And with two more gears in its automatic transmission, it not only feels a bunch more sprightly than the base truck but also gets slightly better fuel economy (15 mpg city/20 mpg highway, compared to 14 mpg city/19 mpg highway). That's what they call a win-win, right?

The top-of-the-line 5.4-liter V8 gets a bump in power for 2009 as well, as it cranks out 320 hp and 390 lb-ft of torque. Thanks to the new six-speed automatic, this motor also returns improved mileage over last year's 5.4, up to 14 mpg city/20 mpg highway in two-wheel-drive versions of the F-150. Only the Toyota's big, thumpin' 5.7-liter V8 feels substantially more powerful than the Ford Dearborn V8, which at 381 hp, it is. Of course, we haven't yet driven the forthcoming 2009 Chevy Silverado with its 6.2-liter V8 and 400-plus hp, but we imagine that it feels pretty strong, too. Oh, and the new Hemi in the 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 isn't exactly weak either.

Slinky and Butch
Ford says the new 2009 Ford F-150 is the most aerodynamically slippery truck on the market. A SuperCrew 4x2 with a 5.5-foot cargo box has a drag coefficient of 0.403. This relative efficiency in aerodynamic drag (funny how no one wants to talk about frontal area) is what helps the special two-wheel-drive SFE model with its 24-valve 4.6-liter V8 get 15 mpg city/21 mpg highway. Well, that and low-rolling-resistance tires and a super-tall 3.15:1 axle ratio.

This is a neat trick, because Ford is playing up its real-truck credentials as opposed to what it portrays as mere lifestyle truck-ettes from the competition. There's no mistaking the tall, bluff front end of the Ford (derived from that of the old Super Duty pickup) for anything other than a full-on truck-based truck, which is all full up with truckishness. The tall walls of the cargo bed (a familiar feature of the existing truck), along with the slab sides and hard corners of the body make the new F-150 look utterly massive. Even so, the use of high-strength steel in the boxed frame rails helps the new F-150 reduce its weight by about 100 pounds compared to the outgoing model.

Moreover, Ford has stretched the popular SuperCrew configuration by 6 inches in length, providing 57.6 cubic feet of cargo space behind the front seats. Flip up the rear seats and you're greeted with a truly flat load floor. Nice.

Built Ford Fluff
"Nice" also pretty aptly describes the rest of the interior of the new truck, too. If there's one aspect of the American pickup truck that has been improved thanks to the lifestyle interests of all those girly, untrucky image buyers on the way to Home Depot, it's the interior. Ironic, since it's those image buyers who are running away screaming from pickups just as the interiors become nicer.

The F-150's interior isn't a bad place to spend some time. Ford has apparently launched a crusade against noise, vibration and harshness, and it has done a fine job of keeping interior noise to a minimum in the F-150. The payoff is that the lack of noise tends to be perceived as quality. And since this thing feels like a rock (with apologies to Chevy) and steers with an unexpected accuracy, the F-150 is perceived as a quality piece.

And it's not just the highfalutin Platinum edition that's nice, although this model does have a heaping helping of satiny, woody and leathery stuff, plus a thick, laminated "quiet-glass" windshield. The materials both look and feel like quality. And should an image buyer or a regular guy choose, he can have pretty much all the niceties that a Lincoln buyer can have and then some. Sync, Ford's popular hands-free communications and entertainment system, is available, as are voice-activated navigation, a 10-speaker Sony audio system and a reverse camera system, not to mention Sirius Travel Link which (for a fee) will provide weather and traffic data as well as a list of nearby dining establishments and local entertainment listings.

Trucks Nuts
For all this, the 2009 Ford F-150 is not all fluffy comfort-and-convenience interior gadgets, though. For '09 Ford brings exterior and mechanical gadgets, too. There are the now-obligatory bed extenders and cargo system rails for the cargo box, of course. The F-150 also nabbed from the Super Duty the step that slides and folds out of the tailgate, which should be good for getting ladies into the cargo bed. And because Ford has made the walls of the cargo box so high, the new truck has bedside steps that tuck under the fender.

Every F-150 comes with not only electronic stability control but also a trailer sway control system, which uses the brakes to help bring a wagging trailer under control. An integrated trailer-brake controller is also offered.

A matter of some importance (given Ford's taunting of its competition) has been the '09 F-150's ability to tow or haul more than rival trucks. And with a maximum rating of 11,300 pounds and a maximum payload capacity of 3,030 pounds, it does.

Truck Bucks
With three engines, seven trim levels, two driveline configurations, three cab sizes and three bed lengths, there are far too many configurations of 2009 Ford F-150 to even describe each one, much less price them all. But a regular-cab Xl with a base-model V8 and four-speed tranny with only air-conditioning on the options sheet will start at $21,320 (including destination). The high-volume XLT model starts at $25,290. And the Platinum model starts at $41,415.

This wide spread in pricing should suit most truck buyers. In any case, the basis from which all of these models sprout is a good all-around package. And that, the Ford guys tell us as they catch a breath in their persistent trash talk, is why the F-Series has been the best-selling pickup truck since Henry Ford invented the wheel.

Ford wants customers to know loans are available to buy cars

Bryce G. Hoffman / The Detroit News

DEARBORN -- Ford Motor Co. has a message for consumers: "We have our own finance company and we are still loaning money and leasing cars.

All the talk about the credit crisis is keeping consumers away from dealerships. But Jim Farley, Ford's head of sales and marketing, says his company is still able to get loans and leases for most customers with decent credit through its finance arm, Ford Credit. He said this is "a critical advantage" at a time when some manufacturers are turning people away.

"Ford Credit is still in business," he told journalists at a dinner Monday night. "We have to start pointing that out. It's up to us to communicate it."

Farley said dealers in some regions are beginning to do just that.

Toyota Motor Corp.'s U.S. sales chief, Jim Lentz, said last week that his company also is able to get loans for most customers, apparently contradicting comments from dealer organization that suggest the credit crunch is responsible for the drop in retail car and truck sales in the United States.

Auto sales remain weak in October after falling to their lowest level in 15 years in September, said Mark Fields, president of Ford's Americas group.

U.S. car and truck sales plunged 26.6 percent last month to fewer than 1 million vehicles as consumers stayed away from showrooms amid concern about the financial crisis gripping the nation.

Ford sales fell 34.5 percent.

"We continue to see weakness in the market," Fields said at a media briefing about the new F-150.

He is optimistic about recent actions by the federal government to address the economic situation but has not yet seen any tangible impact.

"It's really difficult to legislate a better mood," he said.

Fields declined to discuss what Ford's plans are for Mazda Motor Corp., the Japanese automaker in which it owns a 33.4 percent controlling stake.

As The Detroit News reported over the weekend, Ford is considering selling a piece of its Mazda stake, according to sources familiar with the situation.

Fields said that while Ford has relied on Mazda for vehicle platform technology, both automakers have the ability to develop that technology on their own.

Fields said that Ford has stepped up communications with employees to reassure them that the automaker has a plan to deal with the downturn in the U.S. auto market amid the financial meltdown that has helped push Ford shares to new lows.

He said the automaker never imagined Ford shares would drop as low as $1.99, a level touched last week, and acknowledged the situation is a distraction for workers as the company tries to implement a turnaround plan.

"It's really important not to get distracted by what's going on out there," Fields said.

Ford shares closed up 40 cents Monday at $2.39 as the Dow Jones industrial average rose 936 points following actions by several countries over the weekend aimed at restoring stability in global financial markets.

Ford is showing workers new products the company has coming out and emphasizing that the automaker has a plan for dealing with the downturn.

Fields said the crisis in the industry now could provide an opportunity to make more fundamental changes that will help the company in the long-term, although he declined to be specific.

"Never waste a crisis in the industry," Fields said. "It allows us to look at the business and take appropriate actions to secure the future of the company."

He did not rule out the possibility of further production cuts or additional white collar cuts, in keeping with Ford's plan to size the company to match market demand. "We continue to look at our whole business and our competitiveness," he said.

What’s Bad for General Motors and Ford is Bad for America

Our Buy American Mention of the Week!
by Roger Simmermaker

At last December's local union meeting, which I address every month as our local Machinists Union's Communicator, I passed out literature from the Union Label & Service Trades Department of the AFL-CIO listing all the union-made and American-made vehicles. I reminded everyone that supporting domestic manufacturing was one of the best ways to help erase America's trade deficit. After all, how are we to export as much as or more than we import if we allow our own manufacturers to die off? But after the meeting, the all too predictable happened. Someone pulled me aside and asked me just how we were going to help ease America's expanding trade deficit by buying American-made autos when he had heard that foreign cars were of much higher quality than American cars.

Such misconceptions are depressing when they serve to undermine the very automobile companies that are largely responsible for building the middle class in this country. I reminded the gentleman that General Motors, for instance, has recently won more automotive quality awards than you could shake a stick at. And Toyota recently announced the biggest recall on record for a Japanese automaker. This recall involved 1.27 million vehicles.

How sad it is that people run around with virtual tape recorders in their heads, recording what they hear and spitting it out as fact when the time seems appropriate. And it's unfortunate that time isn't something that either GM or Ford have much of to turn things around in the realm of public opinion.

Despite the efforts of many to publicize the true facts, whether it's articles like these or the CEO of Ford Motor Company addressing the National Press Club in Washington, DC, it's anybody's guess whether the remaining two American automakers can survive retaliation of American consumers who are hell-bent on making them pay for perceived sins of the past.

I'm not claiming that GM and Ford haven't made their share of mistakes over the years. All companies make strategic blunders, but I would argue that no company in U.S. history has ever been the recipient of such pure hatred among American consumers as has GM or Ford. And the venom that has been spewed at them is largely undeserved and unwarranted. It's not that I don't think that for every one person who won't buy an American car under any circumstance, there is at least one person who won't buy a foreign one under any circumstance. It's just that there's too many who won't buy the American car. But I'm willing to bet that there is even a larger group of people that know better than to buy foreign but are being swayed by inaccurate information or outright lies.

Bill Ford, addressing the National Press Club on November 22, 2005, noted that GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler combined invest more than $16 billion on research and development each year, which eclipses any other industry in the U.S. From that research and development came, among many other things, America's first hybrid SUV, which was engineered, designed, and built in the U.S. by Ford. The Japanese, of course, have their own hybrids, but the Ford Escape stands alone as the only hybrid vehicle that was built from the ground up. All Japanese hybrid vehicles started as non-hybrids and were converted, a much less innovative task.

Bill Ford went on to point out that U.S. automakers pay more than $11 billion in pensions each year to no less than 800,000 retirees and their spouses. Any American who thinks they aren't affected by the recent struggles of Ford and GM since they don't work for either automaker had better think again. Why? Because you can't take literally billions of dollars out of the U.S. economy without it affecting everyone in the country.

Many Americans recall the days when there was only American competition in the auto industry and in doing so reason that they should buy foreign cars to somehow prevent that situation from occurring again. But if Toyota buys GM and Honda buys Ford, these same people may soon realize that foreign competition absent American competition is much worse. Ultimately, the American economy is large enough to provide enough competition by itself without much foreign competition, as long as there is proper government oversight and regulation to prevent collusion between companies in similar industries. It's hard to believe that a nation as big and diverse as ours can't host enough domestic competition to be considered a healthy and competitive economy.

Retiree benefits are being cut in many industries well beyond the auto industry. If the health care coverage for many Americans doesn't disappear completely, costs may increase to the point that premiums will be unaffordable, resulting in millions more dollars being taken out of the U.S. economy. Wal-Mart already has the deserved reputation for offering unaffordable health coverage, yet they are the apple of corporate America's eye. Unions representing workers at General Motors have voted to take on more of the financial burdens of health care that used to be paid by the company, resulting in over $15 billion more consumer dollars taken out of the U.S. economy. The importance of disposable income for American workers/consumers cannot be overstated since two-thirds of economic activity is dependent on consumer spending.

Americans can only be as affluent as spenders as they are wage earners. And since those employed in the auto industry are among the most well paid, some Americans who don't enjoy similar wages or benefits seem to advocate the industry's demise out of jealousy. But all Americans would be wise to support American autoworkers and their American companies to put upward pressure on wages that will cause ripple effects through other industries.

How does the ripple effect from prominent American industries influence other seemingly unrelated industries? Well-paid American automakers may decide to make improvements on their houses in an increasingly attractive housing market, for example. To do this, they support the banking industry where they get a home-improvement loan. They also support the lumber, construction, and possibly furniture industries as well, whose employees in turn spend their money at restaurants, retail stores, or maybe even on college tuition for their kids.

But instead these same automotive workers are having previously unthinkable reality discussions with their kids, with many telling them that they can no longer afford to send them to college. Major companies such as Delphi, which provide a significant number of parts for GM vehicles, are proposing wage cuts of up to 66 percent saying auto parts workers are too well paid. With China now graduating more engineers than America these days, this is a reality concession our nation cannot afford. But still, the anti-American auto industry crowd cheers these developments on thinking that someone is finally going to pay for the perceived auto-management sins of the past. Little do they realize that we will all pay since we're all Americans, and we are not individually immune regardless of the industry of our employment.

If some American consumers can't see the benefits of buying American through the "Made in USA" argument, maybe they can be persuaded to focus on supporting companies that would prevent American taxpayers from picking up the tab for retirees' pensions and health care if these prominent U.S. companies fail. Such a strategy would not include supporting companies like Toyota, which did not build their first U.S. plant until 1987. In other words, an employee hired by Toyota the first day the plant opened would still have less than 20 years with the company and would not yet be eligible for retirement benefits.

Benefit costs like these are at the forefront of several reasons why GM and Ford have a huge cost disadvantage compared to foreign automakers. But instead of being exalted for their contribution to the U.S. economy, they are accused of being bloated, inefficient, and uncompetitive. American consumers should think twice before passing off the demise of the American auto industry as just another acceptance of global reality and instead long for an economy that at least has some of the traits of the 1970s.

In the 1970s, during which General Motors produced the best running car I've ever owned (my 1976 Buick Riviera accumulated over 250,000 miles before I sold the engine, which still powers a Florida airboat to this day), American consumers managed to save an average of 10 percent of their income each year. And they didn't have to borrow against the equity in their houses and risk their future on speculative bubbles to do it. How amazing it is that the American savings rate has recently turned negative while China's savings rate is around 50 percent. I guess they have to do something with all the American dollars we send them if they aren't trying to buy major American oil companies or appliance makers. My made-in-Michigan 1996 Lincoln Town Car may threaten to take my old '76 Riviera's crown someday since it just passed 160,000 miles with no signs of letting up. There are few things that can counter the lies of the anti-American auto industry crowd than personal experience with American vehicles.

As the old adage says, "As GM goes, so goes the nation." Fortunately, GM will soon begin touting the Chevy Tahoe as the most fuel efficient vehicle in its class. The Chevy Tahoe was also the winner of one those quality awards mentioned at the beginning of this article. If GM is guilty of anything, it's for not communicating well enough or fast enough about how valuable they really are to American prosperity. The American people will eventually find out. It may be the hard way, not through television ads or other media attempts, but they will learn. The only good thing that will emerge from the ashes of the demise of the American auto industry, if it happens, is that Americans will finally learn how to vote with their dollars according to the values upon which a prosperous U.S. economy depends. And not just in the auto industry but in all American industries that are vital to the prosperity of the American nation.

If GM and Ford fail, the American tragedy will be that we'll have to take several steps backward in several areas of our lives before we learn how to start taking steps forward again. But as we begin to take those steps forward, we'll also become more aware of how to avoid going backwards like before. Buying American will become more popular than ever before, and I hope an American presence in the auto industry will emerge and benefit from better and smarter buying habits. I'm not predicting failure for Ford or GM, and I'm hopeful that things can still turn around. But if these two American companies are forced to exit the auto industry, literally millions of Americans will be forced to exit the middle class.

Why General Motors and Ford Should Not Be Allowed to Fail

Our Buy American Mention of the Week!
by Roger Simmermaker

I've been asked to do many interviews recently on Fox News when automotive issues top the current events for the day and a guest is needed to defend the American automobile industry. But my most recent interview on August 1, 2008, had me defending General Motors against the misguided opinions of an economist that was calling for the outright failure and bankruptcy of GM while claiming such a national calamity would actually be in the best interest of America.

Here’s why GM and Ford in particular deserve the support of the American car-buying public, and why the failure of either one or both would cause severe damage to our economy.

Reason #1: You simply cannot take billions of dollars out of the U.S. economy without there being a negative fallout that will affect every American. General Motors and Ford top the list in terms of spending on research & development in America, spending over $12 billion annually. In third place is Microsoft. Last year, GM spent $4.75 billion supporting their retirees and $2.1 billion in advertising (fourth highest in the U.S.)

Gannett Co., publisher of the USA Today and other major newspapers, just announced on August 14, 2008, it was eliminating 1,000 jobs, partly due to falling ad revenue, reinforcing the notion that if the revenue pockets at GM dry up, so do other pockets of the economy.

Reason #2: GM and Ford combined have nearly 100 major plants in the United States. Toyota, Honda and Nissan each have eight. Ford and GM both get at least 80 percent of their parts from American factories, while Toyota, Honda, and Nissan get only 45-55 percent of their parts from here. German-owned Volkswagen, which gets only three percent of their parts from America, just agreed to build their first U.S. plant only after getting a record-setting $500 million in tax giveaways, courtesy of your tax dollars, to employ 2,000 people.

Tennessee already enticed Nissan with a tax-incentive package in 2005 to move their North American headquarters there from Los Angeles, but state officials wouldn’t specify how much tax breaks would cost. And what is Nissan doing now? As of July 31, 2008, per the Wall Street Journal, they’re cutting 1,200 jobs through worker buyout offers, after cutting 300 factory jobs in 2007. Tennessee shouldn’t put a lot of faith in keeping promised jobs at their new VW plant, either. In 1989, Volkswagen shuttered its plant in Pennsylvania and has imported 100 percent of its vehicles ever since.

Maybe all these tax-giveaways to foreign companies are why the Government Accountability Office recently found 72 percent of foreign-owned corporations operating in the U.S. paid no taxes for at least one year from 1988 to 2005. According to the IRS, American-owned companies pay nearly twice as many taxes as foreign-owned companies.

Tennessee’s tax giveaway amounts to $250,000 per job and is a huge sum of tax dollars that could have gone to shore up the 25 percent of America’s bridges that are labeled either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. And speaking of taxes, GM and Ford have paid more of them to the U.S. Treasury for America’s benefit than any foreign company ever dreamed of paying. Few people realize that companies like GM and Ford created the market that foreign automakers are infiltrating now. Had it not been for the better-than-average wages paid by American automakers, not to mention the millions of people that receive pension benefits and health care courtesy of Ford and GM, there would be no market for foreign automakers to tap into.

Reason #3: Many economists believe that a GM bankruptcy would roil the markets, which is especially unattractive as they struggle to stay out of bear territory. According to a July 2, 2008, Wall Street Journal article, GM has already saved the Dow Jones from a bear market at least once already this year. And according to a May 9, 2005, Business Week article, the 54-day strike at GM in 1998 cut the economic growth of the entire country by a full percentage point for that quarter. The article continues by saying that it is "undeniable" that what is bad for GM is bad for America, citing that GM either directly or indirectly supports the employment of 900,000 Americans.

The anti-American car crowd continually points to Toyota as the shining example of what a car company should be like. They also seem to believe that GM apparently made a "mistake" over the last two decades by simply responding to supply and demand and focusing on trucks and SUVs. America fell in love with the SUV back in the 1980s when Ford practically invented it with its Explorer. From 1987 to 2007, the average vehicle gained almost 900 pounds, almost doubled in horsepower and was 8 percent less fuel efficient. Americans drove over twice as many miles in 2006 compared to 1975. According to a Business Week survey, we bought 10 percent more gasoline in the first six months of 2006 than the first six months of 2000 even though gas prices rose 75 percent in that period.

But it wasn’t just American companies making automobiles that were growing bigger and guzzling more gas. The 2006 Lexus 470 SUV, for example, boasted of an increase of 40 horsepower and 12 ft. lbs of torque compared to the 2005 model. Toyota’s Tundra and Sequoia, Nissan’s Titan and Armada, and Honda’s Ridgeline make it impossible to deny the entry of foreign automakers into the profitable big truck and SUV market. American trucks and SUVs usually get the better gas mileage, too. Chevy’s Tahoe gets better mileage than Toyota’s Sequoia, and Chevy’s Silverado and Ford’s Ranger get the best mileage in their segments.

Should GM and Ford have turned their back on consumer demand considering it resulted in higher profits? Of course not. General Motors has the number one market share in the world and in the U.S. precisely because they’ve been making what consumers want to buy. How else does one garner the number one market share? And they have the second-highest market share (behind Volkswagen) in China (the world’s second-largest car market behind the U.S.) because China prefers big luxury cars and SUVs. In China, where hybrids like the Prius don’t sell well, the top selling automobile is a Buick minivan.

But General Motors doesn’t just produce in China to sell to that market. According to a June 18, 2008, Wall Street Journal article, GM will export $1 billion worth of vehicles, machinery, component kits, and other equipment to China between now and 2010.

Everything that American automakers are dealing with is also being dealt with in the foreign car company camps in one degree or another, so it’s unfair to single out GM or Ford for their struggles in adapting to fast-moving marketplace changes. Toyota made an ill-timed push into the big truck and SUV market earlier in this decade considering the recent onset of high gas prices, and now has too much manufacturing capacity in North America. Beginning in 2009, Toyota will no longer make the Sequoia SUV and Tundra in Princeton, Indiana, but will instead consolidate production to the San Antonio, Texas plant. According to a July 28, 2008, Wall Street Journal article, the Big Three and Toyota all placed bets on trucks. And yes, the domestic sales for GM and Ford are falling. But domestic sales for Japanese automakers hit a 25-year low in June, according to Business Week.

All automakers are idling some plants and ramping up or adding shift to others. GM plans to close two American truck/SUV plants, but recently announced a $350 million investment in Lordstown, Ohio, for its next generation of small cars. The Chevrolet Volt will also be made in the U.S. for the 2010 model year. On July 25, 2008, GM dedicated a new state-of-the-art 450,000 square foot, $463 million Powertrain Engineering Development Center in Pontiac, Michigan that will employ 1,200 workers.

A Wall Street Journal article on August 22, 2008, pointed out GM currently generates little, if any, profit selling passenger cars in North America, but they continued to stay here to employ and support Americans anyway. Yet Japanese companies are cutting production here and ramping up back home. According to Honda president Takeo Fukai, "The time has come for our Japan operations to once again take the initiative."

Business Week detailed in its June 9, 2008, issue that all the major Japanese automakers are either investing in existing plants at home or building brand new ones. Honda is pouring $1.5 billion worth of investment into a plant near Tokyo. Toyota is building a new car plant near Tokyo. Nissan is expanding another Japanese factory by 22 percent.

GM alone has 17 models that get 30 mpg or more, and they’re considering bringing the 40 mpg Chevrolet Beat mini car - a vehicle now sold overseas - to the U.S. Ford spokesman Jay Ward told the Wall Street Journal on July 5, 2008, that Ford has "small cars on the shelf all around the world." Bill Ford recently told Business Week that his company is bringing over successful, profitable, award-winning, fuel efficient and well-appointed smaller cars from Europe, mentioning that they don’t have to "create these products from scratch."

What about quality? The Chevrolet Malibu won the 2008 J.D. Power Initial Quality Award, the Mercury Milan won it for 2007 and the Buick Century won the 2008 Vehicle Dependability Study. Ford’s quality ratings now approach those of Toyota, saving Ford $1 billion in warranty costs in 2007. And according to the Consumer Reports' 2007 Annual Car Reliability Survey, 93 percent of Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury models scored average or better, while the redesigned Camry and Tundra both scored below average.

At Edmunds.com, it’s clear that American consumers are finally taking notice of American quality where a list of consumers’ top rated picks for 2008 reveals the Saturn Astra, Buick Enclave, Lincoln MKX, and Chevrolet Avalanche all won first place in their respective classes. The top consumer hybrid pick according to Edmunds.com is the Mercury Mariner SUV, not the Toyota Prius. The sales success, however, of Toyota’s Prius may be at least partly due to their patent infringement on drive trains used on hybrid electric vehicles. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a $4.3 million ruling against Toyota back in 2005 for using patented designs equivalent to those of Paice LLC, of Bonita Springs, Florida.

But I don’t have to look at quality awards to know American cars are deserving of American consumer dollars. My 1996 Michigan-made Lincoln Town Car has over 228,000 miles and shows no signs of letting up, averaging 23 mpg. Not bad for a big American "gas-guzzler."

If you’re looking for the least expensive car to own, look no further than the Chevy Aveo. According to Edmunds.com’s "true cost to own" survey which includes considerations like vehicle cost, depreciation, fuel cost, insurance premiums, and repairs, Chevrolet’s Aveo tops the list.

To ensure a level playing field and fair competition among the foreign competition, the U.S. Congress should release the already- approved funding for the research of plug-in hybrid vehicle technology. Governments of countries like Japan, China, and India have already committed significant funding for their auto industries.

GM and Ford don’t deserve to go bankrupt any more than any other automaker since all of them are taking their hits because of higher gas prices. GM suffered a bigger decline in sales than Toyota in July of this year but Toyota suffered a bigger decline in sales than GM did in June.

Some economists, like the one I debated on Fox News on August 1, 2008, try to make the case that GM in particular deserves to go bankrupt because they supposedly relied on profitable trucks and SUVs for too long. But when I asked the economist if he was out beating the drums for a Nissan bankruptcy in the 1990s when that company almost went bankrupt, he was mysteriously silent.

If any company deserves to go bankrupt, why shouldn’t Nissan instead of GM? According to the Wall Street Journal on March 24, 2008, Nissan’s resurgence from near bankruptcy in the 1990s relied on steady growth in markets like the U.S., which is now in decline. The point is no company can place bets that pan out in their favor every time. I’ve yet to meet a poker player who has won every hand, and I doubt I ever will.

Roger Simmermaker is the author of How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism. He also writes "Buy American Mention of the Week" articles for his website www.howtobuyamerican.com and is a member of the Machinists Union and National Writers Union. Roger has been a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, has been quoted in the USA Today, Wall Street Journal and US News & World Report among many other publications, and is now a weekly contributor to WorldNetDaily.

Ford not interested in GM tie-up

General Motors Corp. approached Ford Motor Co. about a possible merger prior to contacting Chrysler LLC, according people close to the situation.

Though there were direct communications between GM CEO Rick Wagoner and Ford CEO Alan Mulally, those talks never evolved into actual negotiations.

"There were never in-depth, substantive discussions that went on," said one of those sources, who spoke to The Detroit News on the condition of anonymity. "It was more an expression of interest, as in, 'Do you want to talk?' "

Ford said no.

The Dearborn automaker would not officially comment on the reports, but sources familiar with Mulally's thinking on the topic told The News that such a tie-up would be contrary to his plan for saving Ford.

Mulally wants to simplify Ford's own operations and better integrate them on global scale. He wants fewer brands and fewer dealers. And he is jealously guarding Ford's cash reserves, which have so far insulated the Dearborn automaker from the bankruptcy speculation swirling around GM.

Adding more brands, more factories and more dealers just does not make sense in this environment, those sources said.

Mulally has repeatedly pointed to rival Toyota Motor Corp. as his model for success, noting that Japan's largest automaker competes successfully around the world with just one major brand and closely integrated global operations.

Reports that GM had contacted Ford first surfaced in the New York Times earlier today.

Ford contacted GM two years ago to discuss the idea of merging some elements of their operations, such as purchasing and information technology, but those talks never panned out.

As The News first reported in August, GM contacted Ford this summer to discuss possible collaborations on powertrains, vehicle architectures and other areas. The two companies have had several meetings to discuss the joint development of engine technologies, but have so far nor reached any concrete agreement.

Ford plans to sell Mazda shares: source

TOKYO (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co (F.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) is considering selling its stake in Japan's Mazda Motor Co (7261.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), a source familiar with the matter said on Saturday, as debt-laden U.S. automakers struggle with weakening auto sales and the global credit crunch.

Japanese broadcaster NHK said earlier that Ford, which has 33.4 percent of Mazda, was considering selling about 20 percent and had already approached Japanese companies for the sale, adding Mazda would likely buy some of the shares.

The source did not specify how many shares Ford wanted to sell. Mazda has a market capitalization of about 408.5 billion yen ($4.1 billion), which would value Ford's entire stake at around $1.36 billion.

In a statement, Mazda said no specific decision has been made. Ford also said it had nothing to announce and did not want to comment on speculation.

"Our relationship with Mazda has not changed," Ford said.

Slowing auto sales and the global financial crisis have sent shares of Ford plunging to a 26-year low and its U.S. rival General Motors Corp(GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to a nearly 60-year low, with investors questioning their turnaround plans.

Ford Chief Executive Alan Mulally on Friday ruled out a bankruptcy filing, saying the No. 2 U.S. automaker was focused on its turnaround and managing its cash "very, very carefully" as the market slowdown in the United States spreads to Europe and Asia.

NHK did not name the Japanese firms involved or specify what stage talks were in. Mazda is Japan's fifth-largest automaker by global output after Toyota (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Honda (7267.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Nissan (7201.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Mitsubishi (7211.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

The Nikkei business daily said Japanese trading company Sumitomo Corp (8053.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), which is Mazda's business partner, was considering acquiring part of the stake.

The paper also said India's Tata Motors might be a potential buyer (TAMO.BO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), adding Ford was unlikely to sell the shares to Mazda's rival Japanese automakers.

The timing of the sale, coming during a global equity rout, underscores the problems facing Ford. Shares of Japanese automakers have been also hit this year by fears of sluggish global demand, slashing the value of its investment. Mazda shares have lost 38 percent in the past month.

Ford, which posted an $8.7 billion net loss in the second quarter, has stepped up plans to convert some truck production in North America to build more fuel efficient cars and bring over European-designed vehicles under a global production strategy.

The automaker's U.S. sales dropped 17 percent through the first nine months of the year, in a decline led by lower sales of large trucks like its market-leading F-Series pickups.

General Motors (GM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has been in preliminary talks about acquiring fellow U.S. automaker Chrysler LLC, but the talks were suspended due to the upheaval in financial markets, the Wall Street Journal reported late on Friday.

GM on Friday also ruled out seeking bankruptcy protection.

Ford shares fell 9 cents to $1.99 on Friday.

(Additional reporting by David Bailey in Detroit)

(Reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo, Taiga Uranaka; Editing by Kim Coghil)

Ford’s new F-150 to come with trade-in incentive

Ford’s redesigned 2009 F-150 pickup will launch soon into a tough pickup market with a unique trade-in rebate. Prospective buyers who are current pickup owners can choose from a $2,000 “bonus” added to the value of their trade-in or they can take advantage of 6.9 percent financing - not especially low, by any means, but likely a sign of things to come in the industry.

Ford’s crosstown rival, Dodge, is launching the all-new 2009 Ram with a $1,000 rebate, a move industry analysts wouldn’t have dreamed of just a year ago when the cash-cow pickup market was strong.

Ford’s truck marketing chief, Doug Scott, told the Wall Street Journal about the unique incentives yesterday. It is unclear just how broad the trade-in “assistance” will be and if it will eventually apply to those looking to move from a car or SUV into a pickup

Is Now The Time To Buy A New Mustang?

With all the economic hysteria out there about Wall Street, gas prices, and the credit crunch it’s easy to get lost in the fog and miss out on opportunity. While the news is everywhere that you cant buy a new car because of the credit crunch, Ford is waving their hands in the air saying, “Hello! Hello, over here! We have money to lend and good deals to boot!” At a press meeting this week, Ford marketing chief Jim Farley says that their in-house lender Ford Credit is still able and lending plenty of money at low rates and leasing cars with no problem.

But lets get to the meat of the story here, right now is one of the best times on earth to buy a new Mustang. Ford has un heard of incentives on both 2008 Mustang V6 and Mustang GT models. Keeping in mind that incentives vary from region to region, here in Arizona Ford is offering a $4000 buyer cash on 2008 Mustang GT’s and $3000 buyer cash on 2008 Mustang V6 models.

A look in our Saturday paper has dealers offering this rebate in addition to $3000-4000 dealer discounts for a total of up to $8000 off a new 2008 Mustang GT. That is pretty enticing. For an example we found at our local lot, a new 2008 Mustang GT with a good level of options including the GT appearance group, interior upgrade package, interior lighting package, HID headlights and a 5-speed stick. Pretty loaded the car’s MSRP is $29,860

Take that $29,860 and apply a $4000 rebate plus up to a $4000 dealer discount and that brand new GT is only $21,860. In addition to that, Ford is offering current or recent college and trade school students an additional $500 discount. It would be hard for you to find a used 2007 of 2008 Mustang GT for this. Granted, you are buying a 2008 Mustang GT when the 2009 models are just out and the 2010 is coming next year. But if you are looking for a daily driver at a great price, how can you go wrong?

At least in our region, a quick search of dealership inventories shows a great selection of remaining 2008 Mustangs in stock - they are not all base models in silver. Most are V8 Mustang GT's in good colors with good options. The summer's gas prices have left the best for last. And lets be honest, the V8 Mustangs get almost as good mileage as a V6.

When it comes to financing, Ford Credit is offering ultra low interest rates on the 2008 Mustang as well. Instead of the $4000 rebate, you can choose 0% interest for up to 72 months on the Mustang GT. On a Mustang V6, they are offering 0% up to 48 months, and 0.9% up to 60 months in lieu of rebates. Even if you leave the rebates and choose financing, the dealers are giving these cars away.

In summary, when it comes to cars the old Wall Street adage rings true as well. Buy on bad news, sell on good news. While the media wants you to think the sky is falling and you cant buy a new car, right now is one of the brightest opportunities in decades to get a smoking deal on a new Mustang.

Obviously, you need to get with the Ford website to see what the deals and incentives are in your area. For more information you can check out Ford Direct.