Ford: We're Canceling $1.6 Billion Mexico Facility, Investing In Electric and US Plant (arstechnica.com) 432
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Today at the Flat Rock Assembly Plant, Ford Motor Company CEO Mark Fields unveiled a large-scale electric vehicle initiative that will run through the company's next five years. Ford plans to invest $4.5 billion in electric vehicle production by 2020, and the company said it will produce 13 new electric vehicles, including a Mustang, an F-150, police cars, and a Transit Custom van. Additionally, Fields revealed that Ford would be canceling a previously announced $1.6 billion-production facility in Mexico. Instead, the company wants to invest $700 million in the existing Flat Rock facility, generating 700 new jobs focused on EV and autonomous initiatives at that location, according to Ford. Ford described seven of the 13 upcoming EVs during its press conference today. The F-150 Hybrid will be available by 2020 in North America and the Middle East, and Fields noted it'll be powerful enough to stand-in for on-site generators in a pinch. The Mustang Hybrid will deliver "V8 power and even more low-end torque" according to Ford; it too is intended for a 2020 release. Generally, electric motors are well suited to applications where you want a lot of immediate torque, so their presence should work well in a light duty truck like the F-150. Among the other notable vehicles highlighted, Ford is planning a fully electric small SUV that can "deliver an estimated range of at least 300 miles" by 2020. The company also wants to produce an autonomous vehicle "designed for commercial ride hailing or ride sharing" in North America by 2021.
Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Trumperor!!!!!
Thanks to Trump? Obviously! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because we all know that billion dollar investments from multi-billion dollar corporations can be changed overnight on the whim of a Tweet.
Re:Thanks to Trump? Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
The really funny part is that the whole narrative doesn't add up; the claim is they were going to invest $1.6B in Mexico because everything is cheaper there, so instead now they're going to invest $700M in the US because... Trump. That math just doesn't work out. Obviously what actually happened is that the thing they were thinking about building for $1.6B simply isn't going to happen right now, and a totally unrelated thing that costs $700M is happening in the US. Maybe those are related, maybe not, but the narrative is clearly not true.
A BS Narrative? Rhodes is getting kicked out of WH (Score:3)
Maybe it costs 1.6 billion to build a new factory in Mexico, and $700 million modernizing an existing plant in the United States. Under the previous rules they thought were going to be in place, they would have recouped the $900 million dollar difference. Trump's plan is to incentivize building in the US, disincentivize building elsewhere- and this changes the risks and calculations associated with the project.
So I wouldn't say the 'Narrative is clearly not true.' With Gruber, Rhodes, and Clinton continuous
Re:A BS Narrative? Rhodes is getting kicked out of (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a whole bunch of logical problems with your fantasy. Yeah, sure, before they didn't mind wasting $900M, but now since the President hand-waved and said that Congress will make a bunch of new (totally unspecified) rules, they're suddenly happy with it. That just doesn't work as an explanation. It is plain horse-shit. Your reply had zero content, zero logic. All you did is present a nonsense narrative that is clearly not true.
Obviously, some true series of events happened. But they're not what is claimed in the story, and they're not what you made up either.
Re: (Score:3)
We're both engaging in conjecture, you seem upset that my conjecture is different from yours. Perhaps you'd be happier on something that isn't so much a discussion board as a proclamation board?
Re: (Score:3)
Even a business 101 class would inform you that predictability is an important business concern. Businesses do not do knee-jerk reactions that cost $900M based on new rules that haven't even been made! That's complete nonsense. No conjecture required to reject that as an explanation. Notice, I didn't actually engage in conjecture; I'm not saying why they did it, I'm saying exactly that we don't know why. We don't have enough information to make a reasonable claim, but we do have enough information to reject
Re: (Score:3)
I understand your conjecture as saying that Ford was going to spend $1.6G in Mexico rather than spending $700M in the US, for essentially the same thing, before changing its decision. It seems very odd that Ford would spend $900M extra just to locate a plant in Mexico rather than the US. Labor costs would be less in Mexico, but by that much?
Aighearach's conjecture is that there were two unrelated projects, one costing $1.6G and one costing $700M, and they dropped the first and are proceeding with the s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would they even consider Mexico then, if it was always going to be cheaper to update an existing facility?
Long term labor cost.
Re:Thanks to Trump? Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
The REAL reason Ford won't go to Mexico has nothing to do with Trump [yahoo.com] says Ford CEO
Re: (Score:3)
"By late fall, it was very clear we didn't need the capacity, and we made the decision."
In other words, they are expecting times to be bad.
Re: (Score:2)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no. Trump or the GOP aren't going to be raising anyone's taxes or levying any import fees. Makes for a cute story though.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think they meant a Tarrif Spanking if they moved the manufacturing out of country and imported back in.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Taking your suggestion to look at the historical (Score:3)
> However, do not delude yourself or anyone else that GOP == "no new taxes", just because W chanted it like an idiot throughout his election cycle most assuredly does not make it true. Look at the historical record, in practice the GOP raises taxes just as much
Let's do look at the historical record. Here are the actual numbers, the average federal tax rate for all households:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [taxpolicycenter.org]
You may notice that the total federal tux burden doesn't hasn't actually changed that much since
Re:Taking your suggestion to look at the historica (Score:4, Insightful)
You may notice that the total federal tux burden doesn't hasn't actually changed that much since 1979 - they just move things around, without changing the total. Rates for the lowest-income quintile have consistently gone down over the last 25 years, from 8% to 1.5%.
A summary by president for your convenience:
Obama: No significant change (but huge debt which will require future taxes)
GW Bush: average tax rate reduced from 21% to 17.3%
Clinton: No change
GHW Bush: No significant change
Reagan: Reduced from 22% to 21%
Two presidents have had tax changes of more that half of a percent, GW Bush and Ronald Reagan. Both reduced taxes.
Taxes for who? Bush's "base" - sure, their taxes went down. Capital Gains taxes, sure they got reduced by Regan. Workers in the Flint auto making factories, not so much.
Re:Yay (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, it's called an executive order and as Obama is proving very hard the last few days in office, it allows the president broad, unilateral powers to do whatever he damn well wants without any oversight from any other branch of government.
So if Trump wants to get out of NAFTA (for good or for bad), he just has to say so. NAFTA only protects foreign interests, sure there may be some immediate fallout from some nations being really upset they're losing revenue, but what will they do, stop trading with the US?
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
A really big part of the good that will come out of a Trump presidency is that Congress will now clip the wings of the Executive Branch and widespread out-of-control Executive Orders will become a thing of the past.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think either party wants to give up on that sort of control? Trump is still controlled by political interests and if Democrats win any part of the house or senate next election cycle they might want to keep that sort of power in place just to push their agenda later on. To many, Trump is a 4 year deal, some politicians hold onto their offices for decades, so even if Trump is going to be a boy scout about executive orders, the next president will probably be a solid politician.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize they said the same thing about Obama curbing Bush's then-decried use of Executive Orders, don't you?
The ACLU had this huge list of things that Obama could and should have done on day one, using Executive Orders, to reverse bad things that Bush had done before, and the Democrat narrative in response to that was "he can't do those things because Executive Orders are bad and Bush was bad to use them and we shouldn't use them or else the next Republican president will feel even more emboldened to us
Re:Yay (Score:5, Informative)
There's just one small problem: Obama has used less executive orders than any other president in 40 years. Even now, in his final days, when presidents traditionally use a lot of them - passing things their base will like and forcing the other side to be the assholes that repeal it because their base don't like them.
Obama only really began using executive orders after 4 years of the most obstructionist congress in history. The guy REALLY tried to do things by working with congress, they refused to work with him. They took a vow to undermine him at every step and pursued that vow with such alacrity that some of their actions bordered on high treason (that letter to Iran almost certainly crossed the line actually). That was where Obama, finally, started using them as the only means to get ANYTHING done while in office.
What else did you expect when over a 4 year period the republicans would not cooperate on ANYTHING -even things they had been clamoring to do for DECADES were resisted if it was proposed by HIM.
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are Mexican jobs my responsibility? Where were you when people were losing their jobs in the US?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump will keep many highly profitable drugs illegal
Yeah, because Hillary was going to do something different?
I can already see the alt-left's dialogue for the next 4 years... "Obamy said that legalizing Mari-G-Wahna was a great idea but those dastardly Republicans!!!!1!!!!!!!"
Give it the fuck up. Obama escalated the drug war and militarized the police to a higher level then even Bush Jr. then he needed to yank around stoners and gays to stay in office so he changed his tune without
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Afraid of a tax-spanking, Ford plays into the hands of the President Elect - and they will be richly rewarded for their grandstanding.
Meanwhile, a city in Mexico just lost $1.6B of direct investment and many hundreds of jobs. That's O.K., they'll have plenty of other opportunities;
How did the Mexican city lose something that was yet to be built, or that was yet to hire anybody?
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
One would presume the same way the US can gain jobs that had yet to be lost?
Re: (Score:3)
How did the Mexican city lose something that was yet to be built, or that was yet to hire anybody?
Really, is it that hard?
They lost the potential that was there when it looked good for Ford because of NAFTA, which Trump has said he plans to gut. With NAFTA firmly in place, Ford would have built in Mexico, Trump or no Trump (it's about making money). But with NAFTA sure to be repealed or whatever you do with such things, it's no longer a "sure thing" for Ford, and Ford expects (with good reason) that Trump will throw some tax breaks their way.
See?
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested in a hybrid one. Since it can be used as an onsite generator, it would be great to keep the fridge and freezer running during a power outage.
As long as it's diesel and I can afford it, I'll most likely buy one.
Re: (Score:3)
plus ford is already replacing steel with aluminum in the F150 where it can
Good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
While this is ultimately an economic decision (small car sales are waaaay down and Ford doesn't need another factory), I can't imagine the threat of tariffs didn't factor into the decision to cancel the Mexican factory. Nevertheless, it's amazing how the online comments sections are taking a black vs.white/pro vs. anti-Trump side to a nuanced subject.
Ultimately, this is good news for Michigan workers, whether or not we bring politics into the discussion.
Re:Good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question of if Trump deserves the victory lap or not is really moot... What matters is how the voters/workers in Michigan and elsewhere perceive this move by Ford...If THEY think Trump is responsible, then that's all that matters. Give Trump his due, he's at least TRYING to market himself using these accomplishments.
Besides, all the political posturing is not new... What IS new though is a Republican (even if in name only) is taking credit for something largely seen as a good thing for labor... After all, we've been beguiled with tall tales of Obama's accomplishments for 8 years where he's taken credit for things he wasn't responsible for (and a few things he actively took actions to oppose.)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, all the political posturing is not new... What IS new though is a Republican (even if in name only) is taking credit for something largely seen as a good thing for labor...
Mod parent up. Wish I had them of my own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Michigan voter here - We voted for Trump already. Hillary called us deplorable. She should have been her talking about the auto bailouts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is ultimately an economic decision (small car sales are waaaay down and Ford doesn't need another factory), I can't imagine the threat of tariffs didn't factor into the decision to cancel the Mexican factory. Nevertheless, it's amazing how the online comments sections are taking a black vs.white/pro vs. anti-Trump side to a nuanced subject.
Ultimately, this is good news for Michigan workers, whether or not we bring politics into the discussion.
Politics has long been a part of every economic discussion, especially where foreign vs domestic jobs are concerned.
But Obama did a lot more for the auto industry & Michigan, but it'll make scant difference to his legacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama propped up the status quo in the American auto industry. Whether or not that was a good thing is debatable. Only Ford was healthy enough and managed well enough to not require any government bail outs. The industry did not have an opportunity to self-correct or those brands be sold and taken over by more competent management (no one bailed Hostess out when they failed, and guess what? I can still buy Hostess Twinkies the same as ever.) The fact that Ford is looking firmly into the future of both ene
Re: (Score:3)
"Only Ford was healthy enough and managed well enough to not require any government bail outs"
It's been a long time since Ford could make everything they needed for their cars.
Despite their relatively healthy status compared to the other automakers, they supported the call for the industry to be saved since the collapse of the competition would have devastated their own supply chain.
So one way or another, they too got a bailout and would have been devastated without one.
Ford also accepted $6 billion in supe
Re: (Score:2)
But Obama did a lot more for the auto industry & Michigan, but it'll make scant difference to his legacy.
Maybe, but I'm not sure if any of it would have happened if it weren't for this guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
ultimately they are Michigan workers and even Americans but I'm going say to the 700 new jobs probably won't benefit they entire state just the little town of flat rock and maybe a few surrounding communities.
Re: (Score:3)
I've read before that the multiplying effect of a factory job is between 4x and 8x. So for every factory job you create, you also create jobs at diners and clothing stores for the workers, transportation companies to move materials to and from the factories, etc. Do that enough and you have a state's economy.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't nuanced once it becomes a pattern.
Finally Ford see the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...From my understanding it's impossible for a big V8 to pass the new emissions regulations that will be even more stringent next few years.
1978 called, they want your comment back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Current ford v8's already do not pass most of the emissions standards, but are legal to sell because Ford as a manufacturer has certain limit they can go on various areas, so they still have a small number of them. Going forward the new limits specifically say how much soot and other various chemicals are allowed, and the v8's can not pass. The only thing I can think of is if they did something similar to the diesel engines where they have a particulate filter that gets burned out on a regular basis, but I don't see that make sense for cars.
The situation was essentially the same in 1978, and a combination of advancing technology and refinements of the requirements led to the resurgence of the muscle car in the late 1990s.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, and light trucks don't get much better mileage than in 1978 either.
the massive benefits of modern fuel injection, FADEC and other enhancements have mostly been squandered on more weight (heavier vehicles, partially for "safety") and to work through the catalytic.
very, very recently (ecoboost) and a few others have brought some marked improvement, but it feels like a fraction of what we should have had. I could get 20 MPG in my 79 scout with a v8, carbeurator and "barely" electronic ignition.
Re: (Score:3)
I read a recent Mazda press release about how they "ecofying" their new engines making them more efficient and cleaner: 4 into 1 scavenging exhausts, variable geometry intakes (the modern version of a 4 barrel carb), hemispherical piston heads... I forget what all they listed, but every single thing was stuff that was known, and practiced in the 1960s by anybody who cared. Basically, they're saying that they're not turning out bottom-dollar cast iron turds anymore, they're starting to do the things that ha
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are correct.. I think this is a result of the CAFE standards more than anything else. Electric Vehicles are not viable in the USA where distances are huge, even for urban dwellers. Where the average daily commute exceeds the EV's battery's ability to keep the wheels turning.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the world is the average commute more than a 200-mile round trip? Oh, by EV, you meant those low-range pseudo-EVs that the major car companies keep building as a means of convincing federal and state governments that nobody really wants an EV so that they won't have to get serious about them....
Re: Finally Ford see the future. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem was the idiotic regulations which essentially gave large trucks a huge break. And it sucks to. I have no desire for DodgeFordGMToyota RamFuckerTacomarado 8 cylinder megatruck that can apparently pull D10 cats up the sides of glaciers, and would love to buy another small truck like the old 1992 Mazda B2200 I owned, which was good enough to throw a few sheets of plywood into, but could drive around for two weeks or more on a single tank of gas.
Re: (Score:3)
but could drive around for two weeks or more on a single tank of gas.
communist.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
would love to buy another small truck like the old 1992 Mazda B2200 I owned, which was good enough to throw a few sheets of plywood into, but could drive around for two weeks or more on a single tank of gas.
Ford is about to reintroduce a new Ford Ranger into the US market. It's coming soon.
Trump mentioned in the actual article (Score:4, Insightful)
While this is not quoted in the opening paragraph, this would seem to be a significant factor in the decision, and thus maybe worth at least a passing summary in the Slashdot blurb?
Re: (Score:2)
And put Trump in a good light?
There's the rub...
Re: (Score:2)
While this is not quoted in the opening paragraph, this would seem to be a significant factor in the decision, and thus maybe worth at least a passing summary in the Slashdot blurb?
A significant factor, but seems fairly obvious, too. I wouldn't expect a company to cancel outsourcing plans normally, and the current political climate is going to be the best reason to.
Tl;DR: It didn't need to be stated this is because Trump got elected.
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless of how you feel about politicians, I think we can all agree that Slashdot editors are retards.
Nothing to do with Trump (Score:3, Insightful)
You can figure that out in the summary alone. They are doing this because it's nearly $1 billion cheaper to invest $700 million instead of $1.6 billion.
Follow the money, always follow the money. The Presidency almost NEVER has any impact on business decisions, although people like to think so and I'm sure Trump will play with his little horn falsely touting how he made this happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You can figure that out in the summary alone. They are doing this because it's nearly $1 billion cheaper to invest $700 million instead of $1.6 billion.
Follow the money, always follow the money. The Presidency almost NEVER has any impact on business decisions, although people like to think so and I'm sure Trump will play with his little horn falsely touting how he made this happen.
It's going to W all over again. Blame everything bad they do on the previous administration, and take credit for everything good that happens because of the previous administration's work.
Re: (Score:2)
You can figure that out in the summary alone. They are doing this because it's nearly $1 billion cheaper to invest $700 million instead of $1.6 billion.
Follow the money, always follow the money. The Presidency almost NEVER has any impact on business decisions, although people like to think so and I'm sure Trump will play with his little horn falsely touting how he made this happen.
It's going to W all over again. Blame everything bad they do on the previous administration, and take credit for everything good that happens because of the previous administration's work.
Yep. It's easy to say this isn't because of Trump - and perhaps some single events aren't because of him - but it's obvious that a lot more of these stories are coming out of the woodwork in the last two months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG!
This is my doing, BIGLY, believe me. Ford is going to build a new truck, folks, it's going to be called the Ford Sharecropper, and it's going to have all the cyber in it, and -- did you know, we're going to build up our Ford. We're going to have such a strong Ford that nobody, nobody is going to mess with us. We're not going to have to use it. I'm going to open up our Ford laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. W
Re: (Score:2)
So much winning, President Chester Cheeto, Charlie himself would be proud.
Re: (Score:3)
A $700 million investment in place of a $1.6 billion investment? That's protectionism for you - you temporarily get more jobs at home, but your economy shrinks to less than half of its size.
Re: (Score:2)
But the president's policies CAN have a large affect on corporate business. Tax law and regulations can have a drastic affect on when, how and where a company chooses to do things.
Where it's unlikely a president can do all that much by themselves, they do hold a large sway over the making of laws, regulations and enforcement activities, which CAN and DO have drastic affects on business activity.
Don't believe me? Wait and watch as Obamacare is dismantled and the corporate tax rates get lowered as I expec
Re: (Score:2)
Reality. Welcome to it.
Two Decisions are Unrelated (Score:5, Informative)
I have read the linked article and article in WSJ and WashPost. There appears to be some confusion in the Ars Technica article, and in the summary. The investment in the Flat Rock Michigan plant is to create new electric vehicles, to maintain employment for the Ford Escort employees, as Ford continues its plan to move the Escorts to 100% in Mexico. This is similar to the November story, when Ford moved mature Lincoln manufacturing from Louisville KY to Mexico, but invested in a new vehicle manufacturing in KY rather than close the plant.
From the Post https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] :
"At Ford, Joseph Hinrichs, president of Ford in the Americas, said the decision to produce the newly announced cars in the United States was made recently and without consulting people connected to Trump. Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford shared the news with Trump in a phone call Tuesday morning, though the details of that call were not immediately available.
While the Ford Focus will soon be produced south of the border, Hinrichs said the 3,500 workers who currently make the car at its production facility in Wayne, Mich., will instead build two yet-to-be-named vehicles, and thus those jobs will stay in place."
Trump seems very talented at getting his name into headlines about decisions that have nothing to do with him
mod parent down, RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
Trump seems very talented at getting his name into headlines about decisions that have nothing to do with him
Except for the part in the article where Ford's CEO is quoted as saying: "We're encouraged by the pro-growth policies of President Trump," Fields said when announcing the investment shift from Mexico to the Flat Rock facility. Earlier in the day, the CEO told CNN he views the investment as a "vote of confidence" in the president-elect.
I have read the linked article and article in WSJ and WashPost
OK, so did you miss that part, ignore it, or what?
Re:mod parent down, RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric for the Win? (Score:2)
So we need someone like Trump to convince people that electric vehicles work? Pretty sad when you think about it considering I've driven a Volt for 3 years and it's been a great car. Ironic isn't it. What's next, Trump says global warming is real and suddenly everyone who's a climate denier changes?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's an answer to that as well. But you have to start somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is, of course, to start pricing fossil fuels for the damage they actually are doing and will do, instead of basically subsidizing them by making our descendants pay for the bulk of the damage. If free markets are the answer (and I believe they are), then every ton of CO2 emitted should be taxed. Screw the carbon credits, screw the fantasy sequestering, just tax the CO2 directly, and, if everyone who believes in free markets is right, economics will take care of the rest.
Or we can just let it all
Green light for anti-labor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current Ford CEO is nothing like Henry Ford and looks forward to trying to further his interests without union labor.
I'm not sure I follow you. Henry Ford fought unionization to the bitter end. Ford didn't sign a UAW contract until 1941, just a few years before he died. They were the last of the big three to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Take a look at who the UAW supported in this election (and the past ones as well). Considering that Michigan went Trump, they may want to reconsider who they support versus who their members have in mind if they wish to stay relevant.
https://www.opensecrets.org/or... [opensecrets.org]
Great way to invite MORE Mexicans into the US! (Score:2)
Trump’s biggest complaint about Mexico is all the people sneaking illegally into the US and then becoming a “burden on the economy.” Now, I can understand wanting to bring jobs home that are currently in places like China. But the Chinese don’t sneak across a border into the US. By limiting trade with Mexico, this hurts their economy and makes people want EVEN MORE to escape to the US. On the other hand, perhaps investing a little in the Mexican economy might make some of their p
Re: (Score:2)
That was the entire intent of extending Canada-US trade agreements to include Mexico; the theory being a prosperous neighbor is a lot better than an impoverished one. If the US basically decides to kick Mexico in the balls and walk away with the jobs that will help Mexico into the community of developed nations, then it's simply going to feed the need of so many to cross the border legally or illegally, as well as assuring that Mexico remains politically and socially chaotic.
But when you're a demagogue usin
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrid Mustang? I guess ford's the first (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wanted to buy a Ford
Except the people who buy cars, I guess. Ford's US market share (14.5%) in 2015 [statista.com] trailed GM, tied Toyota for second place, and beat Honda and Nissan handily.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody knows Ford sucks. Hard. They haven't won a NASCAR championship in years.
Perhaps that NASCAR thing matters to some, but my '16 F150 is a sweet ride that gets me comfortably back and forth to work and gets 20 MPG city and 25 MPG highway... I'm not so sure Ford sucks all that hard in that user space...
Now how Ford fares with the muscle car crowd is beyond me, as my midlife crisis is behind me at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're making the same mistake I did. Ford has come a long way, and the Japanese have slacked off. I bought a Honda and have had some real issues. My transmission seal leaked. At least that was under warranty. The visor is a hassle I had to fix with duct tape, and has been the subject of a class action lawsuit. My motor mount failed, and there is a bogus aftermarket part I got that didn't work. I have to go back for a real Honda mount that should give me another 100k; but I've never had any oth
Re: (Score:2)
I bet that motor mount was not fine after 30 years, but you didn't notice or care.
Your Honda story has a subtext. You bought a six banger Honda, never do that. They make great 4s, but their 6s _suck_ big wet donkey balls.
The motor mount on a Honda 6 is active. When the six shuts down three cylinders it shakes terribly. To make it workable the mount stiffens. This is also why those mounts are so unreasonably fucking expensive.
Bottom line, never buy a Honda/Acura with anything other than a four banger.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? What makes you think I bought a six? It's a 4-cylinder Civic. Reading around on the Honda forums, I know I'm not the only one with the problem. The mechanic told me the mount is gel, but I don't think it's active.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had it since April 2016, so I guess I'm doing good at 8 months and you are wrong. Here's hoping you continue to be wrong...
My last Ford (a 2000 Expedition) did 12 years and 120K miles with out too much trouble... At least until it was totaled by a VW Bug that hit it in exactly the wrong place and broke the lower front suspension and bent up enough stuff to make it uneconomical to repair given it's value...
But that was 16 years ago and Ford has had serous financial issues since... But hey, you pay yo
Re:Truth of the story. (Score:5, Interesting)
Everybody knows Ford sucks. Hard. They haven't won a NASCAR championship in years.
Is there even a single part on a modern NASCAR car that has any relation at all to an actual production vehicle?
I think that argument is kind of like "Law degrees from Yale suck: Their football record was only 3-7 this year."
Losing (Score:3, Interesting)
Another win for The Donald
And a loss for our domestic car companies who apparently are starting to become less competitive to appease our new President. In what world is a car company deciding to cancel $1.6 billion in investment for the future and replace it with only $700 billion of investment a good thing?
This may have nothing to do with the new administration. Ford could have simply realized they couldn't justify $1.6 billion in investment for new facilities, and needed to be more cautious by enhancing current factories. But if
Re: (Score:2)
In what world is a car company deciding to cancel $1.6 billion in investment for the future and replace it with only $700 billion of investment a good thing?
That sounds fabulous for the US. $700bn invested in the US instead of $1.6bn in Mexico?
Re: (Score:2)
The Mexico plant was to make Focus vehicles, sales of which have tanked (~18%) over the past several quarters.
Probably more of a bizzness decision than a 'Trumpitulation'.
Ha! I made up a new word, let's see if it has legs...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet so many import brand cars are actually made in factories in the USA so why can't our domestic brands keep it in country?
They do when it makes sense to do so, and don't when it doesn't. Just like import brand cars which are sometimes built in the US and sometimes aren't.
Re:Losing (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you hate America?
I love my country, which is why I want it to stay competitive. Factory payrolls, construction contracts, and industrial production all increased after the Smoot-Hawley act as well, but the Great Depression was a grim reminder of what happens when countries try for short term gains through protectionist measures.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate America?
Do you still beat your wife?
Behold the power of a question with an unsubstantiated premise.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't you guys supposed to be experiencing cognitive dissonance over your loyalties to fossil fuels about now?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
LS6 is better in every way/number.