|
|
Post by Redforever on Jun 6, 2013 9:31:30 GMT 10
After 50 years of Holden versus Ford in the big local six and eight market the war is over. And Holden won! There was the odd bright point for Ford with the Falcon helping Ford to local sales success and outselling Holden for the first time back in 1982. But then Ford in all of it's wisdom misread the market and dropped their V8 and along with a strong comeback from Holden with the VK and VL Commodores by the arrival of the VN - Ford was again on the back foot. Then with the V8's return and the EB Falcon update the Falcon looked to be getting some passion back. Ford then decided to try and take on HSV with Tickford and the EB GT. Which was a good first attempt but followed up with the eye wateringly ugly EL GT. It's looks wouldn't have been as much of an issue if it actually went well. But it was ugly and compared to the VR HSV's it was slow. And then came the AU. Many will argue that this was really the point at which the Falcon had it's death warrant signed. An under engineered and bewilderingly ugly car that had the double hammer blow of being released against Holden's most popular Commodore series. The VT (based in part on the latest Opel) was a well engineered and good looking model backed up shortly after with the Chevy 5.7 litre V8 that left Ford with a performance gap throughout most of the life cycle of what was otherwise a succesful update with the BA Falcon. Ford further confused the issue for it's performance buyers by introducing the turbo XR6 ad F6 FPV models. Great cars no doubt, but surely a waste of engineering and investment on Ford's part to offer both a turbo 6 and V8 performance option where the cheaper turbo turned out to be faster than the thirstier and heavier V8? Added to this Ford's again bewildering aproach to marketing the Falcon and it's performance models and their half hearted support of V8 racing further confused and distanced it's fans and supporters. And when Ford did start to get a roll on in racing they shot themselves in the foot by walking away from their succesful race teams. Then Ford continued with what they had done for decades, do too little too late in terms of engineering and body updates to it's various models and then justify their slowing sales as a reason to stop making them. This process has been happening for years. Ford dropped the Fairlane and LTD after doing virtually nothing to it since the AU. Even though Holden was selling record numbers of Statesmans and Caprices, Ford did little more than stick the BA's panels on the AU long wheelbase models and then sat back and watched those models get slaughtered by the big Holdens. And remember Ford had the long wheelbase local market to itself from 1984 through until 1990 as Holden had no VB - VL long wheelbase model. So Ford managed to not only blow a market that they had completely to themselves, but a lack of product development and marketing (do you ever recall seeing a Fairlane ad from about 1998 onwards?) had these vehicles discontinued a little over a decade and a half later. So from a market of over 10 000 vehicles a year throughout the 80's when the Fairlane and LTD had zero competition, Ford sat back and watched those sales drop away to just a few hundred being purchased almost exclusively by cab companies because the Fairlane was cheap to repair and reliable. A good car left to rot on the vine with minimal investment that was like so many other models in Ford's line up aventually axed due to poor sales as it's competition simply pulled away with better designs and engineering. Then the Falcon wagon suffered the same treatment. Do virtually nothing to a design that had previously had the barest minimum done to it for model after model and then claim poor sales as the reason for its death. Now the Falcon has gone exactly the same way. Ford had no intention of spending the money or time that they needed to keep the Falcon competitive against the Commodore and given the massive engineering updates Holden have recently done to produce the VF, the Falcon never stood a chance. In fact why would Ford invest anything in a model that it is unlikely to sell more than a few thousand of over the next couple of years until it shuts it's local assembly down. And who would want to buy a Falcon built by hundreds of people who know that they are being made redundant? Now there's a car to avoid. You can imagine the quality of product that you will get from a bunch of pissed off workers more interested in finding a new job than worrying about the quality and reputation of the product and company that just gave them all the arse. The VF Commodore is the most well engineered, best built and best equipped model in it's history while the Falcon is a half arsed orphaned effort with a 4 cylinder engine, no V8 model, no long wheelbase version and no wagon. History will show that Holden and the Commodore won and Ford and the Falcon lost. In the showrooms and on the race tracks Ford have been defeated, thoroughly and completely. And that makes me smile...  |
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Jun 6, 2013 11:56:35 GMT 10
And then came the AU. Many will argue that this was really the point at which the Falcon had it's death warrant signed. It should have been the ringing of the death knell for the falcon but to Ford's credit the next model of the falcon they turned out, the BA, even for a Holden man to admit was a pretty good looking car. Even with the BA arresting the sales decline in falcon sales in the AU era between 1998-2002, it could never quite get ahead of the commodore that has held the sales lead over the Falcon for the best part of 18 years. And with the distance in sales between the two ever widening from the point that the BA was introduced, the Falcon just couldn't hold on in a market for large cars that is shrinking anyway, especially as a local manufacturing product. The thing is, which perplexes me the most I suppose, is that after the BA you couldn't really say that any of the updated versions of the Falcons were duds. They were solid and quite appeasing to the eye to look at were the FG and the BF. But Ford's marketing campaigns changed to focus on the fuel efficient cars and SUVs that they thought were the trend which really placed a knife in the falcon's back that it hasn't been able to remove and hence its death. On a sidenote, very astute marketing on the part of Holden last night in the State of Origin to use the two in-goals as big advertising slogans for the VF. |
|
|
|
Post by Raptorman on Jun 6, 2013 23:04:13 GMT 10
Holden haven't won the war. They are just one of two dominoes left standing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Redforever on Jun 7, 2013 15:08:01 GMT 10
Holden haven't won the war. They are just one of two dominoes left standing. If you compete in a market and manufacture and sell rival products and one product comprehensively outsells another and the company that makes the poorer selling product decides to pack up and leave. I'm pretty sure most peple would call that a win to the company still left and manufactiring and selling it's product. Unless you look at the world through a dickhead's eyes I suppose? |
|
100%FORD
V8 Development Driver
Posts: 342
|
Post by 100%FORD on Jul 27, 2013 12:34:37 GMT 10
Looks like Holden/GM are trying to screw over its workforce with a $200 a week paycut and capped redundancies and sucking out another quarter a million dollars from the taxpayer.
Ford was upfront, looks like Holden are being sly and deceptive or is it just gutter warfare.
Who will shut up first?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Jul 27, 2013 13:39:51 GMT 10
Ford was upfront, looks like Holden are being sly and deceptive or is it just gutter warfare. Welcome back!  But were they? So when Ford took a $100 million government grant in January last year, they weren't already planning to make the announcement they did this year that they were pulling out? I don't know what's worse. Ford taking the money and then 10 months later cutting 440 jobs or 15 months later saying that production is to stop and 1200 jobs to go by 2016? If anyone is being 'sly and deceptive', it would have to be Ford, wouldn't it? Remember at least Holden are putting their cards on the table: if they don't receive government funding, the chances of them ceasing manufacturing in the country will increase. So the government knows the stakes in their dealings with Holden. The government, it can be presumed, gave that grant in good faith to Ford that they would continue to manufacture cars beyond 2016 and employ workers. It may be that Ford did not have plans to make those jobs redundant or stop manufacturing when it took the money but you simply cannot deny the impression that it leaves us that Ford were underhanded, sly and deceptive to the Australian taxpayers. |
|
100%FORD
V8 Development Driver
Posts: 342
|
Post by 100%FORD on Jul 27, 2013 14:37:22 GMT 10
Ford was upfront, looks like Holden are being sly and deceptive or is it just gutter warfare. Welcome back! But were they? So when Ford took a $100 million government grant in January last year, they weren't already planning to make the announcement they did this year that they were pulling out? I don't know what's worse. Ford taking the money and then 10 months later cutting 440 jobs or 15 months later saying that production is to stop and 1200 jobs to go by 2016? If anyone is being 'sly and deceptive', it would have to be Ford, wouldn't it? Remember at least Holden are putting their cards on the table: if they don't receive government funding, the chances of them ceasing manufacturing in the country will increase. So the government knows the stakes in their dealings with Holden. The government, it can be presumed, gave that grant in good faith to Ford that they would continue to manufacture cars beyond 2016 and employ workers. It may be that Ford did not have plans to make those jobs redundant or stop manufacturing when it took the money but you simply cannot deny the impression that it leaves us that Ford were underhanded, sly and deceptive to the Australian taxpayers. It wasnt a 100 million grant that was the total investment for the $103 million project $37 m Fed gov grant + app $20 m Vic gov grant Ford put in the remainder of the total for the $103 million project that gauranteed it manufacturing in Australia till 2016. You may also find currently Ford employ more workers than Holden at a fraction of the cost to the Australian taxpayer, dont forget Holdens recieved over $I BILLION more from the Government than the other Aussie car builders in the 12 years up to 2012. While Ford will not be building cars in Australia they will still employ 1000+ staff engineering cars in Australia for the Ford global platforms. Yet theres no comment on the 400 Factory worker 100 engineers and 200 contract workers Holdens cut in the last 6 months and they recieved $275 million to build cars here till 2020/2, its looking rather shakey or should it be shonkey if you read into what Holden wants the remainder of the workforce to give up. |
|
|
|
Post by Redforever on Aug 6, 2013 16:43:37 GMT 10
Welcome back! But were they? So when Ford took a $100 million government grant in January last year, they weren't already planning to make the announcement they did this year that they were pulling out? I don't know what's worse. Ford taking the money and then 10 months later cutting 440 jobs or 15 months later saying that production is to stop and 1200 jobs to go by 2016? If anyone is being 'sly and deceptive', it would have to be Ford, wouldn't it? Remember at least Holden are putting their cards on the table: if they don't receive government funding, the chances of them ceasing manufacturing in the country will increase. So the government knows the stakes in their dealings with Holden. The government, it can be presumed, gave that grant in good faith to Ford that they would continue to manufacture cars beyond 2016 and employ workers. It may be that Ford did not have plans to make those jobs redundant or stop manufacturing when it took the money but you simply cannot deny the impression that it leaves us that Ford were underhanded, sly and deceptive to the Australian taxpayers. It wasnt a 100 million grant that was the total investment for the $103 million project $37 m Fed gov grant + app $20 m Vic gov grant Ford put in the remainder of the total for the $103 million project that gauranteed it manufacturing in Australia till 2016. You may also find currently Ford employ more workers than Holden at a fraction of the cost to the Australian taxpayer, dont forget Holdens recieved over $I BILLION more from the Government than the other Aussie car builders in the 12 years up to 2012. While Ford will not be building cars in Australia they will still employ 1000+ staff engineering cars in Australia for the Ford global platforms. Yet theres no comment on the 400 Factory worker 100 engineers and 200 contract workers Holdens cut in the last 6 months and they recieved $275 million to build cars here till 2020/2, its looking rather shakey or should it be shonkey if you read into what Holden wants the remainder of the workforce to give up. Your facts as ussual are wrong. Holden has recieved about $1 Billion in Government support in the last 12 years in total, not more than the other manufactures. And Holden return more than $3 Billion a year to the Australian economy in terms of wages, investment and local parts purchases. In fact the income tax on wages to Holden's workers is virtually as much as the Governmnet support that the car maker has received over the past 12 years. Ford has already made their announcement and are walking away, they are finished. Holden are at least trying to work with unions and the government to keep manufacturing in Australia. It's hard to defend Ford in a fight that they have already lost mate... |
|
100%FORD
V8 Development Driver
Posts: 342
|
Post by 100%FORD on Aug 6, 2013 20:19:20 GMT 10
It wasnt a 100 million grant that was the total investment for the $103 million project $37 m Fed gov grant + app $20 m Vic gov grant Ford put in the remainder of the total for the $103 million project that gauranteed it manufacturing in Australia till 2016. You may also find currently Ford employ more workers than Holden at a fraction of the cost to the Australian taxpayer, dont forget Holdens recieved over $I BILLION more from the Government than the other Aussie car builders in the 12 years up to 2012. While Ford will not be building cars in Australia they will still employ 1000+ staff engineering cars in Australia for the Ford global platforms. Yet theres no comment on the 400 Factory worker 100 engineers and 200 contract workers Holdens cut in the last 6 months and they recieved $275 million to build cars here till 2020/2, its looking rather shakey or should it be shonkey if you read into what Holden wants the remainder of the workforce to give up. Your facts as ussual are wrong. Holden has recieved about $1 Billion in Government support in the last 12 years in total, not more than the other manufactures. And Holden return more than $3 Billion a year to the Australian economy in terms of wages, investment and local parts purchases. In fact the income tax on wages to Holden's workers is virtually as much as the Governmnet support that the car maker has received over the past 12 years. Ford has already made their announcement and are walking away, they are finished. Holden are at least trying to work with unions and the government to keep manufacturing in Australia. It's hard to defend Ford in a fight that they have already lost mate... "WOW", now you know more than Holdens Chairman/MD Red  www.businessinsider.com.au/holden....e-dollar-2013-4The news comes just days after Holden revealed that it had received $2.17 billion in state and federal government funding over the past 12 years. Ford only received $1.1 billion and Toyota $1.2 billion,  Your the one wrong as usual  The only thing GM/Holden are doing there best at is trying to minimize the exit costs when they pull out, Cut wages Cap redundancies An extra $125 million a year subsidy from the Aussie taxpayer with no guarantees attached on top of the $275 billion. the Mother ship GM has no morals what so ever, look at the millions they screwed over when it declared bankruptcy, now making huge profits(not as much as Ford but ;D ) ,but has no intention of paying back any of the share holders, creditors or the US taxpayers who will be out of pocket 10's of billions of dollars. It will suck as much out of the Aussie workers and taxpayers, then run without looking back  Read more: thev8armchairexpert.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=generalgeneralmotoring&thread=507&page=1#ixzz2bBO6ivIM |
|
|
|
Post by Redforever on Aug 9, 2013 8:22:36 GMT 10
Your facts as ussual are wrong. Holden has recieved about $1 Billion in Government support in the last 12 years in total, not more than the other manufactures. And Holden return more than $3 Billion a year to the Australian economy in terms of wages, investment and local parts purchases. In fact the income tax on wages to Holden's workers is virtually as much as the Governmnet support that the car maker has received over the past 12 years. Ford has already made their announcement and are walking away, they are finished. Holden are at least trying to work with unions and the government to keep manufacturing in Australia. It's hard to defend Ford in a fight that they have already lost mate... "WOW", now you know more than Holdens Chairman/MD Red www.businessinsider.com.au/holden....e-dollar-2013-4The news comes just days after Holden revealed that it had received $2.17 billion in state and federal government funding over the past 12 years. Ford only received $1.1 billion and Toyota $1.2 billion, Your the one wrong as usual The only thing GM/Holden are doing there best at is trying to minimize the exit costs when they pull out, Cut wages Cap redundancies An extra $125 million a year subsidy from the Aussie taxpayer with no guarantees attached on top of the $275 billion. the Mother ship GM has no morals what so ever, look at the millions they screwed over when it declared bankruptcy, now making huge profits(not as much as Ford but ;D ) ,but has no intention of paying back any of the share holders, creditors or the US taxpayers who will be out of pocket 10's of billions of dollars. It will suck as much out of the Aussie workers and taxpayers, then run without looking back Read more: thev8armchairexpert.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=generalgeneralmotoring&thread=507&page=1#ixzz2bBO6ivIMSorry mate that link about the $2.17 Billion doesn't seem to be working. The rest of your rant is subjective dribble, speculation and factually wrong. GM were 'lent' money by the US Government and have already paid back billions and are years ahead of the scheduled repaymnt plan. www.thestreet.com/story/10731969/1/gm-repays-loans-in-full.htmlBut why let the facts get in the way of your scare mongering and misdirection eh? Holden are trying to negotiate to keep building cars in Australia. They could have taken the easy route as Ford did and take the governments mony with no intention of staying a local manufacturer, but they didn't. Holden are working with the governments and unions to try and stay in Australia building cars. If you want to talk about deception and ripping off tax payers, look at Ford. They gladly took millions off the government to keep their engine plant open then promptly announced that they were closing it and then took millions more claiming that they were going to build the Focus locally and then didn't. So there is plenty of deception and government rip offs happening in the local industry, but as far as I can see they are almost all being carried out by Ford. |
|
100%FORD
V8 Development Driver
Posts: 342
|
Post by 100%FORD on Aug 9, 2013 17:33:25 GMT 10
Wrong twice Red , enjoy the facts Heres the link incase it doesnt somehow work again  and the whole story: www.businessinsider.com.au/holden-will-shed-500-staff-blames-high-aussie-dollar-2013-4Holden chairman and managing director Mike Devereux just announced that the company is going to cut around 500 production and development jobs, blaming the effect of the high Australian dollar. Most of the job cuts will be in the company’s Elizabeth plant in Adelaide’s north, with around 100 expected to be lost in Victoria. The company is competing in the small car market with countries “with currencies that have been unnaturally manipulated,” Devereux said on ABC News. Devereux also said it was now 60% more expensive to produce cars in Australia than it was “just 10 years ago.” The high Australian dollar, he said, also makes Australia the most expensive country for the General Motors brand to conduct research & development in. He said the company hoped to achieve the job cuts through voluntary redundancies. The news comes just days after Holden revealed that it had received $2.17 billion in state and federal government funding over the past 12 years. Ford only received $1.1 billion and Toyota $1.2 billion, News Limited reported. Devereux defended the assistance, saying that Holden takes it “seriously,” before telling reporters he could only focus on what he could control. Holden’s staff pay $150 million in payroll tax per year, and the South Australian plant generates $2.2 billion in economic stimulus every year, he said. “I can not control what central banks do. “I am not a fortune teller. I cannot predict the future. I do focus on building world-class products … but there are no guarantees in life or, frankly, in the automotive business,” he said. As for that government loan repayments, it shows just how underhanded GM really is pay one Government TARP loan with the secondary back up Government TARP loan, www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/23/did-general-motors-really-repay-taxpayer-bailout/General Motors announced this week that it repaid its multibillion-dollar taxpayer-backed TARP loans. GM even bragged that it was able to “repay the taxpayers in full, with interest, ahead of schedule, because more customers are buying [GM] vehicles.” There was great fanfare, including expensive, around-the-clock GM TV commercials nationwide. But, the hype is not the reality. In fact, GM did not repay the loans with money it earned from selling cars. Instead, GM repaid the TARP loans with money it withdrew from another TARP fund at the Treasury Department. The day before the GM story broke, Neil Barofsky, the government TARP watchdog, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. He explained that GM did not use earnings to repay its TARP debt. The April quarterly report to Congress from his office stated: “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” GM filings with the SEC reveal that GM was paying 7 percent interest on a $6.7 billion TARP debt. The filings also confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multibillion-dollar TARP-funded escrow account at Treasury; that means it was taxpayer money — not earnings. Meanwhile, in all the fanfare and patting themselves on the back, Treasury and GM made no mention of what happened to the $2.5 billion loan GM owes its union health care plan. The union loan carries a 9 percent interest rate and runs until 2017. Don’t most Americans try to pay off their higher-interest debts first? Well, the union loan was not paid off. Why not? Does the union get to keep collecting 9 percent from GM until 2017, courtesy of the American taxpayer, while taxpayers give up a 7 percent return over the next five years in exchange for the hope that GM stock will be worth more than what we paid for it, someday down the road? It is far from clear how GM and the Obama administration could honestly say, much less trumpet in prime time television ads, that GM repaid its TARP loans in any meaningful way. The reality is that GM got additional TARP billions from a Treasury escrow account filled with taxpayer dollars. Taxpayers have not been paid back “in full” and are still on the hook for the TARP stock investment in GM. Whether taxpayer funds are ultimately recovered depends upon the administration’s ability to sell GM stock at a profit some day. Of course, we all hope it works out that way, and it might. But, the American people deserve more than puffed-up press releases and misleading commercials claiming that GM paid its loans back to the government with money it earned. I recognize that one of the goals of the GM ad campaign is to build trust, but GM did it all wrong, apparently with some help from the administration. Shifting bailout money from GM debt to GM stock is not the same as repaying it. Stock is riskier than debt. Maybe it’s a good idea. Maybe it’s a step in the right direction, maybe not. Only time will tell. But, we should be clear with the American people about what happened here. The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury is beginning to admit the truth. Treasury claims the source of the funds was “clearly disclosed” all along. Well, that might be technically true. However, to understand the disclosure you have to be a sophisticated investor with time to pore over the fine print buried in massive SEC filings and government reports prepared by independent watchdogs with teams of auditors. The average citizen, on the other hand, just sees the GM CEO saying that GM has paid back the taxpayer “in full.” The truth is that GM originally received over $49 billion from the US government and many billions remain to be recouped. That is why we were told at the Senate Finance Committee hearing that TARP losses related to the auto companies are expected to exceed $30 billion. The timing of this maneuver also is troubling. The administration’s so-called Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee, a TARP excise tax intended to recover TARP losses, was the subject of the Finance Committee hearing. The Office of Management and Budget, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimate that overall taxpayer TARP losses will exceed $100 billion, and the auto companies will account for over 30 percent of that amount, more than $30 billion. So why does the president exclude the auto companies from his TARP excise tax proposal? I raised this issue at the hearing. I noted that GM refused to testify. The next day we learned that GM, with the permission of Treasury, withdrew billions from the TARP escrow fund and accelerated the repayment of the entire GM TARP loan. Immediately, GM and the administration launched a public relations campaign touting “repayment.” Regardless of the motive, this situation is a perfect example of the shenanigans caused by excessive government intervention in the economy. Being honest with the American people is not optional. The sooner these extraordinary entanglements between taxpayers and the private sector are over, the better. Red, Ford have stuck by the agrement to build cars till 2016, the question is will Holden abide by its $275 million grant and remain building cars here till 2022, its looking very unlikely and could be gone before 2016, Mid September is D Day  |
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Aug 10, 2013 0:19:04 GMT 10
It is more interesting the parts of the article that you chose not to emphasize rather than the ones that you highlighted. Mostly this one: So, if we are to take News limited words that Holden have been granted over $2 billion by the taxpayer, Holden has generated at its own estimates $2.2 billion in stimulus every year for the last 12 years which amounts to, in my calculation to be, $26.4 billion worth of stimulus if we are to take what Devereux says is true... There is no counter figure that I can see from what you have provided to illustrate what Ford have generated for those 12 years to the economy but if sales figures are anything to go by and given the fact that the gap between Holden and Ford, particularly the Commodore vs. the Falcon, has seen an ever-increasing gap that it is reasonable to assume that whatever extra Holden has been given by the taxpayer it has been paid back in stimulus to the Australian economy many times over compared to Ford Wrong. There was nothing said by Ford at the time when they received that funding from the government. The government it appears was under the apprehension that Ford would continue to build cars beyond 2016 whether or not that included the Falcon or the Territory. |
|
|
|
Post by Raptorman on Aug 10, 2013 19:31:11 GMT 10
If the workers truly cared about Holden, they would sacrifice their $50/hour for something lower so they can save that big red sinking ship called Holden.
However I did read something interesting about the government funding. It is not only just to keep the factory doors open. Its main purpose is to help the companies design and develop cars in Australia, which is something that Ford does, as we have seen with the new Ranger, new EcoSport FWD and next gen Mustang, whereas Holden just design cars.
By the way Redforever, you're being a little bit selective with the VT been a great car. Sure its a good car, but it has very well known suspension problems which weren't rectified until the VY.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Aug 10, 2013 19:49:36 GMT 10
If the workers truly cared about Holden, they would sacrifice their $50/hour for something lower so they can save that big red sinking ship called Holden. You're right there. The workers perhaps can see the 'writing on the wall' and trying to get as much from Holden while their doors are still open because if they did still see hope that Holden would continue to manufacture cars until 2022 there would be cause to take the pay cut if it provides them with long-term job security. |
|
100%FORD
V8 Development Driver
Posts: 342
|
Post by 100%FORD on Aug 12, 2013 9:11:29 GMT 10
It is more interesting the parts of the article that you chose not to emphasize rather than the ones that you highlighted. Mostly this one: So, if we are to take News limited words that Holden have been granted over $2 billion by the taxpayer, Holden has generated at its own estimates $2.2 billion in stimulus every year for the last 12 years which amounts to, in my calculation to be, $26.4 billion worth of stimulus if we are to take what Devereux says is true... There is no counter figure that I can see from what you have provided to illustrate what Ford have generated for those 12 years to the economy but if sales figures are anything to go by and given the fact that the gap between Holden and Ford, particularly the Commodore vs. the Falcon, has seen an ever-increasing gap that it is reasonable to assume that whatever extra Holden has been given by the taxpayer it has been paid back in stimulus to the Australian economy many times over compared to Ford Wrong. There was nothing said by Ford at the time when they received that funding from the government. The government it appears was under the apprehension that Ford would continue to build cars beyond 2016 whether or not that included the Falcon or the Territory. I cant find a figure for Ford, but going by your logic Holden has built/sold 100% more cars over the 12 years to warrant the 100% more in funding/grants, the best year i can find is app 40% or is it Holden have a big inefficiency problem just like the mothership GM Then you forget to take into account the cost/revenue added of the Falcon and I6 engine for the entire 12 years and the Territory and I6T from 2003 wholly being researched designed developed engineered and built in Australia, where as the Commodore was only a re-engineered Opel platform pre 2006 and the V6 engines were a joint development between Holden and GM except the H/O3.6ltr from 2005. As for Holden v Ford sales over the 12 years Ford has actually closed the gap and the Commodore sales have mirrored the decline in sales of the Falcon, if not worse as a percentage. Far from wrong Bundy maybe miss worded, Ford hasnt asked or been awarde any grants/funding beyond 2016, unlike Holden that has excepted funding/grants to build 2 platforms until 2022 and now want more |
|
|
|
Post by Redforever on Aug 12, 2013 14:36:52 GMT 10
It is more interesting the parts of the article that you chose not to emphasize rather than the ones that you highlighted. Mostly this one: So, if we are to take News limited words that Holden have been granted over $2 billion by the taxpayer, Holden has generated at its own estimates $2.2 billion in stimulus every year for the last 12 years which amounts to, in my calculation to be, $26.4 billion worth of stimulus if we are to take what Devereux says is true... There is no counter figure that I can see from what you have provided to illustrate what Ford have generated for those 12 years to the economy but if sales figures are anything to go by and given the fact that the gap between Holden and Ford, particularly the Commodore vs. the Falcon, has seen an ever-increasing gap that it is reasonable to assume that whatever extra Holden has been given by the taxpayer it has been paid back in stimulus to the Australian economy many times over compared to Ford Wrong. There was nothing said by Ford at the time when they received that funding from the government. The government it appears was under the apprehension that Ford would continue to build cars beyond 2016 whether or not that included the Falcon or the Territory. I cant find a figure for Ford, but going by your logic Holden has built/sold 100% more cars over the 12 years to warrant the 100% more in funding/grants, the best year i can find is app 40% or is it Holden have a big inefficiency problem just like the mothership GM Then you forget to take into account the cost/revenue added of the Falcon and I6 engine for the entire 12 years and the Territory and I6T from 2003 wholly being researched designed developed engineered and built in Australia, where as the Commodore was only a re-engineered Opel platform pre 2006 and the V6 engines were a joint development between Holden and GM except the H/O3.6ltr from 2005. As for Holden v Ford sales over the 12 years Ford has actually closed the gap and the Commodore sales have mirrored the decline in sales of the Falcon, if not worse as a percentage. Far from wrong Bundy maybe miss worded, Ford hasnt asked or been awarde any grants/funding beyond 2016, unlike Holden that has excepted funding/grants to build 2 platforms until 2022 and now want more Maybe because Ford has already announced that they are closing shop. A bit difficult to ask for more money when you've already announced that you are closing the doors on your local manufacturing. And as for the article you quoted earlier. It comes from Foxnews who are the most right wing anti Obama media organisation in the world. I take their 'journalism' with a grain of salt. Like everything that they do, they are just a publicity and propoganda machine for right wing republicans. When you take away the misdirection and editorial hysteria the facts remain that GM paid the loans back early and they satisfied their legal and commercial obligations that were required under US law in terms of how they did it. The rest is just typical Fox propoganda and scare tactics. And if Ford sold so many cars and were doing it for so long without government support, then why are they closing up local manufacturing? Why did they sit back and do virtually nothing whilst the Falcon lost sales? Why didn't they update it? Why didn't they spend money on the Falcon wagon? Why didn't they spend money and update the long wheelbase Fairlane and LTD when they had the chance? You dismiss the most obvious of questions. If Ford were doing such a good job then why is the Falcon selling at a crawl and why are they shutting down locak production? |
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on May 5, 2014 19:29:47 GMT 10
From Inline6 is much better than v6:
Falcon (Inline6 model) is the best engineered car in Australia and Commodore is best marketed(Ford Falcon needs to be advertised a lot more)Holden are always adverting commodore on tv,how often do you see Ford Adverting Falcon on Tv recently? Not very ofte
Ford Australia started in 1925,Holden started 1948, Faclon started in june 1960, commondore satred in 1978, so Falcons have been around longer and have had more engineering input than commmondores
also iridium spark plugs, 3inch air intake pipe, with Jim mock motor sport race series headers,100cpsi high flow cat(2.5ich inlet & outlet with 4inch body), 2.5inch mandrel bent exhaust,iridium spark plugs, ULX 110 (15-40w)engine oil, 98 octane BP ultimat
Inline6 has a deeper exhaust note than v6, put a Jim mock race series headers, 2.5inch mandrel bent exhaust and 100cpsi high flow cat,cold air ss induction with K&N air panel filter,ULX110 oil,k&N performance gold oilfilter and J3 chip and it will go hard
Ford Australia, makes the best 6 cylinder engine in the world, it is cast iron block which is a lot stronger than alloy block, and is inline6 which produces more bottom end torque than v6 design, also inline 6 engines last a lot longer than v6
|
|
and the whole story: