Do ya think he’s going to make that trip by driving? I’m sure we’ll still see the Ford corporate jet on the ground in Seattle multiple times every month.

What we’re seeing today is just a PR stunt.

“American versions of the BRAT also had carpeting and welded-in jumpseats in the cargo area that served to reduce import duties. Although the Brat could fairly be called a truck, the seats in the cargo bed allowed Subaru to designate the BRAT as a passenger car. Passenger cars imported into the US were charged only a 2.5% tariff, compared to the 25% charged on trucks.”

With the US Government (I am sure at the insistence of the Big 3) charging a 25% tariff on the import of trucks, the foreign builders really had no choice but to decide NOT to build trucks until they could produce them in the US to avoid the tariffs. The Big 3 knew that full size trucks were their bread and butter money makers, so this tariff saved their hides for the time being. You also need to take into account, that these foreign car makers were experienced developing and producing 4 cylinder engines. To develop the type of 8 cylinder engine needed for a full size pickup or SUV takes years of development.

Fords CEO needs to pull out JFK’s old ‘61 Lincoln Continental Limo from the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. He’s going to get his head blown off anyway, so why not do it in style with the appropriate car?

GM – A modern gm car such as one with 2 seats, 7000cc V8 16 valve push rod engined ox cart inspired leaf spring suspension finished with a plastic body.

Chysler – hearse

If your intent is to pressure the D3 and to remind them of the inherent frailty of the SUV and truck markets then I will trouble you no more. They obviously do need a reminder that they cannot forsake the smaller vehicle segments just because they have smaller margins of profit. However, there is something lost in all this debate and that is that we, the consumers, bear some responsibility for the D3’s current plight AND that we NEED them. Consumers demanded trucks and SUVs. You cannot blame a company for supplying them. All things being equal, when that consumer desire ends, the companies who did not prepare for it should disappear. The problem we are in; however, is that we need the D3 both for our economy and our defense industry. Moreover, the D3 did their best to catch up to the imports in terms of small vehicles. We all know it takes 5 or so years to bring a car to market. So, things like the new Malibu (car of the year winner) were conceived back in 2003 when SUV and Truck sales were just starting to show cracks.

The Asian and European manufacturers did not base their business on SUVs and trucks, but I still believe that had more to do with luck of timing than foresight. As many have noted, the Asian and European companies WISHED they had had the foresight to see the explosion in SUV and truck sales in the 1990s and early 2000s. Look, what I am really getting at is that hindsight is 20/20 and unlike many posters here I do not see the Asian and European manufacturers as having some great sage wisdom that helped them avoid the current downfall of the D3; but, rather tremendous luck in timing. Since we need the D3 to survive, I just do not see the point in tearing them down all the time, especially when they have made efforts that show they have been working to correct a problem in their lineups for at least 5 years.

You have been reading/commenting on this site for too long to be so disingenuous! You KNOW you have read many articles on Leftlane that point out that Honda and Toyota were both lusting after “over-sided SUV” sales and that they only reason they were so late to market is that they had trouble making ones to compete with the American SUVs. Honda and Toyota’s plodding, NOT FORESIGHT, saved them from the much of the debacle of the D3 companies, but not all of it. We have all witnessed the articles that point out how Toyota has had to idle their workforce and idle their truck-producing plants in the U.S. Does that sound like foresight or a company caught with their pants down just like the D3 companies? Face it, it was timing and you are smart enough to know it. And while I am at it, do I may as well reiterate the point made by other posters. Many of the American trucks and SUVs get BETTER MILEAGE THAN THEIR EQUIVALENT HONDA AND JAPANESE COUNTERPARTS.

So, HoosierHero, for your argument to work you would have to say that Ford and GM were wrong to make money on SUVs and trucks when they did AND that Honda and Toyota never started producing SUVs and Trucks (two things, which I think most of us reject).

That being said, I like Ford’s direction with their product lines…

I’m not surprised, seeing your handle, that you have no idea how much has changed in Ford and GM’s lineup in the last two years and more.

Statements like this, “Just build a better product, reduce waste, and develop a plan for the future. America isn’t asking much…”, make me shake my head. (sarcasm)It sounds so easy.(/sarcasm)

Really, where are these people coming from? Don’t pretend like you know the efforts and sacrifices of the D3, and then show absolute ignorance by making it sound like they’ve been playing shuffle-board whilst the ship sinks. Landmark Union deals (though not enough), selling off all available stocks, putting brands up for sale and selling others, closing factories, idling plants, laying off thousands at a time, and yes, even sacrificing pay (this is the second time Wagoner has taken a heavy pay cut since GM was surpassed by Toyota). All this and they’re not cutting funding for new, much needed product. Unlike the financial institutions in the US and Canada who got a free ride, these guys are actually working hard to turn things around and save the industry.

Zero chance he drives an Expedition (although they should have plenty sitting around).

*cough*Citibank*cough*

At least you’ll get something back from the D3 (D2?) if you invest in their survival. $1.5B you’ve dumped into the Banks, now, and they’re not lending ANY of it. Talk about a waste of cash.