Who could have seen this coming?
Ford Motor Co of Canada was the country’s top-selling automaker for a second month in a row in July, when sales jumped more than 47 percent from a year earlier even as its main rivals recorded another month of declines.
The Canadian arm of Government Motors was down 41.9 percent from the year before….
h/t Ron in Kelowna
People are voting with their feet. Good on Ford!
This is why cash-for-clunkers exists: to increase activity in the car market in the US and “prove” that the admin. is running “their” industry well. Because they sure as hell can’t have the only one of the big three not to take federal money getting all the business — that might show that private enterprise and old-fashioned capitalism work.
This is heartening, that merit can, and does win out sometimes.
A big increase in F150 and SUV sales.
Well if that ain’t just greener than Al Gore’s soul.
Gotta love all the Gaia lovers out their making responsible choices.
According to this, “their” industry isn’t doing too well. Of the top 10 vehicles purchased under c4c, 8 of them aren’t GM or Chrysler. tee hee
I have a family member looking at purchasing a new vehicle – he’s looking at a Volkswagon. Its more expensive than the domestic models but that’s a consumer choice. You can’t force people to buy what they are not interested in driving. Cheers.
My next vehicle is going to be a Flex.
Saving my pennies…
I will never buy a vehicle from a company owned either buy a union or a government.
I’ll make an unpopular recommendation that auto buyers not switch from GM/Chrysler to Ford, but switch from GM/Chrysler to anything not assembled by the CAW/UAW. I don’t think the CAW/UAW cares if you buy a Ford instead of GM/Chrysler, they still win.
Note: I’m lumping the CAW in with the UAW which may be unfair. It’s very possible that the CAW is not as corrupt as the UAW, in which case auto buyers should avoid UAW built cars.
Duck and cover.
I don’t have a problem buying a vehicle (or anything else) from a company that’s union-owned, as long as the union actually bought it with their own money and are exposed to the downside risk of making a crappy product. If, on the other hand, the union’s company is protected from failing, I’m no longer interested.
If there’s no skin in the game, there’s no motivation to play the game well.
Garth
Well, good for Canada.
But, I am still struggling with this one, according to Obama’s Stimulis Package you get a US Gov’t backed trade-in of up too $4,500 on a $20,000 vehicle that reduces it to $15,000 and everybody is happy.
Well, #$@#$%, if they had let the %%$$%#&^%$ Car Companies go broke we could have got them for $10,000.
God, Politicians are stupid.
,
Garth … wise up … Unions ARE a protection racket. Their members are only interested in a sure thing. They, like all socialists want a no-fault life.
strong unions + weak corrupt management = failed company
Look for a nasty strike at Ford within the coming year.
Garth,
The union did not have a legitimate claim to those shares; the bondholders did. In essence, the union and government stole from the rightful proprietors of both GM and Chrysler.
Posted by: Ken
10:04 AM
**People are voting with their feet. Good on Ford!**
Yep!!!!!!
Nobody wants to own an orphan……..
Ford made a good decision when they refused the bail-out money, many, myself included will never buy a GM product because of what they now represent, ditto for Chrysler.
never been a ford fan but the have my business from this point forward because they remain true to the free market which freed the world and created the middle class.
GM and Chrysler from my view might as well go ahead and name all their cars Yugo, I’ll never look at another no matter how attractive, they are infected.
I have no problem with the UAW building the cars. I just don’t like them using their political muscle to take property from people’s retirement funds with neither due process, nor compensation.
I was looking at a Denali, but I just can’t pull the trigger to give 40 odd K to Obama Motors. Maybe Lincoln makes something nice.
My Honda was built right here in Ontario without a bailout and made by non-union labour.
Ford still has the unions but if I was going to by an American brand, they’re the only one left on the radar.
I have no use for a North American Lada/Yugo
This story is actually very funny for me personally.
When the kids decided they wanted to play hockey last fall (the were 11 and 9) we went to buy a van. Eventually we made our way to a Ford dealer, who immediately informed us that Ford was no longer making vans. It was Okay, as I was looking for a 3-5 year old vehicle and he did have a 2005 Windstar (IIRC). After driving it around the block, I returned and he asked if I liked it. No, said I – it had way too stiff steering. The honest man told me – they all are like that, all Ford vans and SUVs.
That was my 2nd and last experience with Fords. The 1st was an ’83 Tempo that was given for free to my neighbour, where I helped him to make engine run smoother by picking Al oxide from distributor cap pins. Once around 2002 I actually borrowed and drove that Tempo. It easily reached 100 kms/h, but that was it. My long ago dead VW Passat ’81 did 180 with ease having a smaller engine and screwed up carburetor.
We ended up buying a Quest, which is not perfect but is roomy and easy to drive. Ford suxx, as do Chrysler (had to use Google to spell that word), GM, Toyota and Honda.
Aaron,
I’ve never had anyone complain about “Too Stiff” of steering before, and the economy cars of the early 80s were all underpowered (engines have steadily become more efficient, and you now get far more power off of the same fuel economy) and 21 years of steady driving will hurt the performance of any car.
In other words, while you’re allowed to have your own opinions about anything, your opinions about Ford seem unusual; and almost like you’re trying to find some reason not to like Ford.
Awesome
Toyota and Honda suck? Really. GM are OK cars too, but I will never buy another one. I have 100k on my Suburban and it still runs great.
I think it has more to do with sound management and foresight.
Ford downsized its redundant production models a few years ago. They took the risk on introducing 12 new engine designs a decade ago and now these have the bugs ironed out. They also made smart moves into the heavy equipment and commercial trucking markets.
They also gravitated to Henry F’s original business model of producing reliable no frills basic transportation, their base models were really “base” but very affordable. You want luxury they have a lot of custom options and just in time delivery. The other guys just built the luxury models (special packages) instead of optioning it.
GM had too many luxury clunker models and Chrysler has reliability issues across the line but both had higher price tags.
With consumer credit collapse its hard to sell over-engineered cars made expensive with too many frills and redundant technology. We now are in a market where the consumer wants an affordable, fuel efficient car he can purchase with minimal finance that is reliable because he will have to hold on to it for a while until he can afford another large expense.
That was the way consumer demands were before cheap finance and no qulifying turned the auto industry to making expensive overly complex breakdown clunkers with built in obsolescence due to enormous maintenance and repair costs. The virtually free credit was the incentive to buy every 3 years before the junk you drive really craters after warranty.
Thats why a lot of 65-75 GMC half ton PUs and full sized cars are still in service and still maintainable when a 85-97 “luxury” 1/2 ton is in the scrap dealers.
Now now people. the Canadian People’s Car Co. (CPC) needs you.
Don’t gloat – run out and buy CPC – otherwise your $12 billion ‘investment’ is going to be lost – and the government will have to provide more.
C’mon people, support your government – give give give!
the deep and sincere reassurances of continued warranty coverage for Government Motors new purchases reminds me of the joke about the airline captain on the p.a. system announcing out of the blue “there is no cause for alarm”.
LOL !!!
Aaron…
I have to agree with NoOne. fyi…I drive a 2002 Windstar with 250,000 on it with no problems, which is pretty good for a minivan.
You say Fords suck because the steering is too stiff? Wow, your stretching it there. Perhaps you should try your comments on Motoring 2009’s page.
Momar and Charles:
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Garth
Consumer Reports has lately said that Ford has improved their quality quite a bit more than GM and Chrysler. The Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan twins have been highly rated for reliability since their introduction.
No, I did not say that Fords suck due to stiff steering. I did not mention other shortcomings, which were also present in GM and Chrysler (now I know how to spell it). Both myself and my wife are of taller stock and we did not have enough room in Windstar, Montana or Caravan. Some of them had ludicrous operation of 2nd and 3d row seats.
Toyota Sienna sucked due to brakes being too spongy on all units I tested, and Honda Odissey were all rusted from the rear door frame and undercarriage.
The only sound van that suited our family was Nissan and that’s a consensus of 4. By the way, my other vehicle is Accord and I am happy with it, so no, I am not a Nissan fan.
Could see that coming from way off.Cripes. The gumbermintAnd it doesn’t matter whose)can’t even run a whorehouse without it going bankrupt.
Ah, now if only John Galt could vote with his feet
and his wallet as far as cradle to grave subsidization of Conservative farmers. Or would a Galt engage in the same small dead hypocrisies as the rest of you?
This opinion won’t be well received here, but boycotting GM and Chrysler will just make the billions lavished on them by government totally wasted. As it stands now, there is some slight chance that both firms could survive, and eventually pay back the money. The boycott will effectively eliminate that chance.
And before anyone holds out that old canard that North American companies build cars that are shabby, JD Power found that Buick had the highest rank for dependability in 2009, and they have been in the top 10 makes since 2003. Even Chrysler, which had worse scores than GM or Ford, still beat out many Asian and European makes like Mazda, Volkswagen, and Land Rover.
Kevin
Are you kidding? What would make you think that GM or Chrysler will ever return to profitability? We have demonstrated that there will be no repercussions for poor management so nothing will change. You think perhaps they’ll just try harder because it’s the right thing to do? It’s like telling children that you have to clean your room but if you don’t, I’ll clean it for you. That oughta work out just fine…
” boycotting GM and Chrysler will just make the billions lavished on them by government totally wasted. ”
It is too late for that. It has already been wasted. I don’t want to live under a system of “soft fascism”, which is what this is. It too quickly turns to hard fascism as the economy goes south and the hunt for scapegoats commences.
“…but boycotting GM and Chrysler will just make the billions lavished on them by government totally wasted.”
The money was wasted the second it was announced. You’re a fool if you thought we’d ever see a dime of it back or that it would do any long term good.
No one has mentioned the obvious. Now that our tax dollars have been used to subsidize the people’s car company, incentives will be offered using even more of your taxes to make sure you buy a car the state wants you to buy.
“**People are voting with their feet. Good on Ford!**”
I have to notice how people vote politically as well; exactly as the MSM tells them to. I haven’t seen a good Found-On-Road-Dead in my lifetime. I pity the consumer. With the Gubment running GM there is no good NA made vehicle with a decent price tag available. Toyota is good quality but far too pricey considering their labor costs are near half of the big 3.
“Ford downsized its redundant production models a few years ago. They took the risk on introducing 12 new engine designs a decade ago and now these have the bugs ironed out.”
Yes, and they did all that “ironing the bugs” with your dollar. Should have arrived at something usable for over 200,000K eventually. I haven’t bought one in a decade and don’t intend to.
Blown manifold gaskets; leaking power steering seals; leaking transmission seals; engine oil consumption 1L per 100K; blown EGR valve manifold (almost caused engine fire), burned out drive shaft bearing twice; Thrown timing chain; etc.; etc..
And that was just my F-250 in under 160,000K. I also owned a Windstar and a Topaz. Made the mistake of thinking they would fix their problems. Jokes on me.
If the Gummint had not Bailed Out GM and Chrysler we could have got some good deals.
I wanted a Z71 like a purple passion, but no more.
All of the companies at the top of the sales chart have relatively new product offerings that are desirable. GM and Chrysler are have a bare cupboard of new product, that is changing from GM’s perspective soon.
But Ford has done well. And yes I expect the CAW to make a major run at them, and Ford to do likewise, get costs in line.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the membership, who are probably just plain happy they have avoided the problems atGM and Chrysler.
There probably isnt the support for a being greedy or pigheaded at the membership level.
About those lavished billions –
“The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.” – Frederic Bastiat
While GM and Chrysler have certainly been encouraged (and in more than one way), we have no way of knowing the unseen effect of not spending those billions either elsewhere or at all.
Who is John Galt?
the people are voting for the company that didn’t screw them over for tax dollars.
Socialism is a mental disease. Anyone knows how it is transmitted?
Rob R:
We have demonstrated that there will be no repercussions for poor management so nothing will change.
You are aware that GM CEO Rick Wagoner got fired, right? That GM no longer has the huge pension issue? That any new hires will come on board at half the wages of existing members? That it is closing many unprofitable plants? All those changes should make it easier for them to make a profit, but only if people buy their cars.
Tim and Jason – would you say the loan guarantees offered Chrysler in the 1970’s were wasted? The government helped them get through a rough patch, all the loans were paid, and Chrysler then invented the minivan, and made billions of dollars. Net cost to taxpayers? Zilch – well, actually, considering all the taxes paid by their workers instead of going on EI, the taxpayer actually did quite well in the end.
And you just have to look at the American financial sector to see how anxious they are to have government off their backs. JP Morgan ($25 billion) and Goldman Sachs ($10 billion) paid off their TARP loans early so they wouldn’t be restricted by the stringent rules on executive pay that TARP demands. Why would you expect the executives at GM to be different?
And I’m sure one reason for the drop in GM’s sales is a practical one, not an ideological one. If you’re not sure the company will be around to maintain its warranty, would you buy its cars? Once people become comfortable with the idea that GM will live on, I’m pretty sure we’ll see a significant boost in sales.
O’unleashers the O’Money Machine. Rahm keeps it hidden in the White House sub-sub-basement.
57 states – 25 states = 33 states without grant$.
It’s nOt fair.
…-
“Obama told a gathering of community that the federal government would distribute $2.4 billion in 48 taxpayer grants to create next-generation electric cars and recreational vehicles.
The grants will be divided among 25 states.”
“Obama: ‘Unleash prosperity for everybody’ (The Marxist Obama Unleashed)”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2309066/posts
“You are aware that GM CEO Rick Wagoner got fired, right?”
KevinB, of course Rick did supposedly get paid out $20m in severence, so I don’t feel too sorry for him.
I think the better questions would be 1) how many other members of the GM executive got fired, and 2) has this experience taught GM to make better decisions. I suspect the answers are 1) not many and 2) probably not (they have now learned that they are considered “too big to fail” and can be supported by someone who owns a printing press).
In the end, GM needs to come out with desirable products (with real value for money) and bulletproof reliability (not “initial quality”, but Toyota level perception of reliability).
Regardless of the bailout spent by the US (due to Michigan and UAW support for Obama), and sadly Canada as well, this is a sunk cost.
If the product is still crap, Consumers are not obligated to throw their own after-tax dollars at GM or Chrysler.
Who could have seen this coming?
Yikes! Anyone with more than the minimum intelligence required to read and put two thoughts together.
Yup no one expects GM to survive no matter how much money is poured into it from our wallets. They already stole our tax money. Why should we buy a car from them?
Besides who in the future wants to drive a lawn mower with a bubble. Except the smug. Most of us own cars for work. not to express our social morality such as it is.
JMO
hardboiled at August 5, 2009 12:15 PM
HaHAhahaha!! 🙂
For the future opf government Motors, just google “British Leyland”