GM lost $1,227 per vehicle through June

[Niko_Fx]

GM lost $1,227 per vehicle through June, Harbour says
Reuters / August 29, 2005

DETROIT General Motors lost an average of $1,227 per vehicle in the first half of this year in North America, while cross-town rival Ford Motor Co. lost $139, according to new research from Harbour Consulting.

"GM has two to three people sitting at home for every single person working today, and that has a huge legacy cost impact on them," Laurie Felax, vice president of Harbour Consulting, told an automotive conference on Monday. "It wipes away any profit that they have."

Both GM and Ford are struggling with multibillion-dollar "legacy costs," including generous retiree health care and pension benefits awarded under their restrictive contracts with the United Auto Workers union.

In June, GM also launched its big employee pricing discount program in which any consumer pays the same lower price a GM employee would pay for new cars and trucks. The discounts resulted in blockbuster sales for GM, but some Wall Street analysts said the incentives, which continue through September, are squeezing already low or nonexistent profit margins.

The employee pricing program was matched by Ford and DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler arm in July.

Through the first six months of this year, Chrysler was the only Detroit automaker to make a profit per vehicle, Felax said. It averaged a meager $186 per vehicle, she said.

In sharp contrast, the big three Japanese automakers -- Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. -- all earned well over $1,000 per vehicle in North America.

Nissan earned an average of $1,826, Toyota $1,488 and Honda $1,203 per vehicle in the first half of their fiscal 2005, Felax said.

Japanese automakers, relentlessly gaining U.S. market share, have very high profits per vehicle because they have more efficient manufacturing operations and lower legacy costs, Felax said.

The relatively new plants of Japanese automakers in North America have younger workers and a mostly non-unionized work force.

Toyota, Nissan and Honda are also stepping up production capacity in North America, particularly for high-margin pickups, Felax said.

"The (profit numbers) are going to continue to grow as that mix of trucks grow for the Big Three Japanese companies," Felax said.

http://www.autonews.com/defaultRegister.cms?newsId=13185

[spi-ti-tout]

Does anything say anything about Mitsubishi?

[Sweeney921]

hahahah I love how GM screwed itself with an already desperate marketing scheme.

[sutton4481]

Ironic how the unions which fought so hard for these retirement benefits for their former workers are now costing the company so much it has to keep its current workers at home.

[piston_burner]

The worst part about what we are seeing with GM and Ford is these issues were noted back the 1980s. Both GM and Ford managers made some efforts to address the issues, but the desire to keep the short term outlook good, they did invest enough into the future good of the companies and make the hard choices about cutbacks and pay until after the problem had become huge.

According to one book I read, GM managers in the 1980s spent hundreds of millions on robotics that ended up causing them more issues then helping. Roger Smith blew large amounts of cash that GM had on failed programs to help GM. Smith believe the Japanese were using secret high tech tools to make cars better and cheaper then GM. They did not want to except the idea that GM management style was outdated and costly.

I live near the NUMMI factory. That is the "joint venture" with GM and Toyota. It is an old GM factory that had been shut down by GM in the 1970s in Fremont, California. GM gave the factory to Toyota to run and they could build cars for both Toyota and GM. The stories I read of GM managers coming in from Detroit to work at the factory where interesting to read. Managers who had plush offices with remote control doors and three TVs were given a small desk with the rest of the workers. Toyota believes workers and managers are to work like equals. No special manager cafe, manager restrooms, or reserved parking spaces.

After reading about 4 different books on automotive manufacturing, it has become my opinion that Ford and GM managers were slow in changing and greedy. Their mistakes have created long term problems that are killing these companies now.

I think it was great when Toyota, Honda, and Nissan openned factories in the United States. They took the "awful American workers" that GM and Ford said made it nearly impossible to build high quality cars in the United States and they did fine. Most people do not know how many Japanese car are built here in the United States. It was more proof that GM and Ford management styles or systems were a big part of the problem.

GM and Ford had become famous for busting suppliers down trying to get parts made very cheap. It killed off many suppliers. Toyota and Honda would send their own staff to help suppliers to become better. In turn these companies would supply quality parts and a good price. As much as Ford and GM may talk about being team players, it has been Toyota and Honda that shown they are team players.

I can go on and on about the problems at Ford and GM. It breaks my heart to see these companies doing so poorly. I am big believer if free markets and the idea that businesses must change with times. The failure of Ford and GM to make change and the short term planning that pewvious managers of Ford and GM have made life hard for current management. Toyota will become the largest volume builders of cars before 2010. GM and Ford have been making changes, but they are still moving to slowly. I can see the day when Ford or GM gets taken over by another company. Their track record of failures is wearing their companies down.

I believe both Ford Motor and General Motors can make a come back, but right now they still have management issues hurting their efforts.

[clutch-monkey]

if they die i hope they don't take holden and ford australia with them :)

edit: i notice you used a less provocative title here niko ;)

[Prius]

BAAAA hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

[fpv_gtho]

Those profits for the 3 Japanese makers dont really seem like much for some reason...But if GM are losing similar amounts of money, given the economy it cant be good.

[piston_burner]

Those profits for the 3 Japanese makers dont really seem like much for some reason...But if GM are losing similar amounts of money, given the economy it cant be good.

The auto industry as a whole as been getting thinner profit margins, but when you consider how many cars Honda and Toyota sells in North American alone, they are pulling in a ton of cash. Worldwide Toyota alone is making more money then many automakers combined.

It sad to see how the US automakers have lay offs and rebates to try to make profits. Companies like Toyota and Honda have taken a steady flow approach to things and now they are taking control of the world automotive market.

[fpv_gtho]

Its interesting to note that last year, Toyota locally only made about $AUD70 million profit whilst Ford made about $AUD 150 million and Holden had over $AUD200 million

[Niko_Fx]

if they die i hope they don't take holden and ford australia with them :)

edit: i notice you used a less provocative title here niko ;)

I did... Another forum had the same thread with the same title and some idiots were saying "We can still nuke that pony island" etc... Which is utterly ridiculous and childish and didn't want the same thing to happen on UCP. The title applies to the info in the article only, but some ppl have a hard time acknowledging that.

[piston_burner]

Its interesting to note that last year, Toyota locally only made about $AUD70 million profit whilst Ford made about $AUD 150 million and Holden had over $AUD200 million


Toyota is a company that takes it time growing. In North America they came to this market in 1958. Their current strong position in the US Market took them a while to secure, but delivering quality year after year has given them the best reputation any automaker could want. I know people who bought nothing but Toyotas for the last 30 years and they have yet to have a lemon. Most Ford and GM owners, including myself at one time, got at least one lemon. I now drive a 2005 Honda Civic LX. Ford and GM did not offer a good enough car for the price range I was looking at. I paid more for the Honda by $1500 over what I could have gotten from Ford or GM, but the quality gap seemed big enough to make paying more seem worth it. That is the kind of reputation car makers want.


Ford and GM are a long ways from being down for good, but like I said they have been playing catch up for over 20 years and they just have not caught up yet. Their management style is still to short term oriented.

[Esperante]

BAAAA hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha
STFU.
Toyota loses $3,000 on every Prius.

[kennyknoxville]

^lol...

[Prius]

Toyota loses $3,000 on every Prius.

Toyota sells other cars too, and they are moving off the lots faster than GM's cars.

[Esperante]

Toyota sells other cars too, and they are moving off the lots faster than GM's cars.
That doesn't matter. Don't go around like an arrogant twat. GM losing 1500 bucks a car isn't good for the 25,000 who will lose their jobs this year and for the several thousand more who could come if GM doesn't improve.
And you should be more concerned than any of us all here. 25,000 people is a lot. You always laugh at the big 3 because their American and stupid and blah blah blah... but if everything bad you wanted to happen to the Big 3 happened, your quality of life in Detroit would not be fun. Detroit would be a living hell.

BAAAA hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

[piston_burner]

Toyota is was losing $3000 on each Prius, but as their volume goes up the losses are getting smaller. Prius makes up a tiny portion of the overall Toyota sales. Toyota believes the loses on the Prius are minor considering the positive image and all they are learning from the production of this car. Not everything Toyota does works out, but their success record is much higher then most autmotive manufactures.

The problems at GM & Ford, the only American owned manufactures, is sad to see. For as jobs are lost in the Detroit area, it seems like companies like Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and other building in the United States are offering more jobs. The nature of a free market economy is punishing poor management and rewarding well run companies.

It is not that cut and dry. There are many factors involved in the short comings of Ford and GM. I just look at the NUMMI plant as a prime example of how GM and Ford have failed and most of what they blamed as the source of their problems, Toyota has managed to over come those things to be successful. Building cars in the San Francisco Bay Area has to be one of the most costly markets in the world to have a factory. It took nearly a decade to get other suppliers into the area to support the factory. High cost of labor, high taxes, high real estate costs, and American workers. Those were all things Ford and GM managers in the 1980s and 1990s blamed for their problems. Toyota has managed to use those "lazy American" workers to make high quality cars on time and on budget.

The automotive industry that Detroit had is bascially gone. I do not ever see those glory days ever coming back. The automotive market these days is lean and mean. The millions of customers that once bought American cars and the children of owners that owned American cars, still have a bad impression locked in their heads from the rolling junk piles they sold in the 1980s and 1990s. I owned a 1982 Mercury Capri Black Magic 5.0, 1986 Ford Escort EXP, 1989 Ford Probe GT, and 1993 Ford Probe GT. Only the 1993 Ford Probe GT was a really good car, but it still did not match the build quality of the 1993 Acura Integra. I got a 1989 Nissan Maxima and it was not bad. It was my 1998 Honda Civic that really impressed me. For the money, it felt solid, and gave me no headaches from stupid problems like I had with previous cars. I drive a 2005 Civic now and it is a wonderful car. I look at what GM & Ford had to offer for around $15,000 and the Civic had a better build quality then what Ford & GM offered.

It has been known for many years that GM & Ford had big labor benefit package costs that were getting bigger. The shrinking market share and large dependence on SUV and trucks for profits is among the many factors why they are is such deep trouble now. Both Ford & GM were not ready for the inflated gas prizes. They had started to make changes, but they started a few years late. I do think they are catching up and some might say they have caught up, but they are not consider industry leaders. The image of Ford and GM in North Ameirca is gas guzzling cars with so-so build quality. Both Ford & GM have some good models out, but the over all impression is not that good. It is unknown if Ford & GM can win back the millions of American buyers who gave up and bought Japanese cars instead. Considering the high level of satisfaction owners of Japanese cars seem to have year after year, it will be hard for GM & Ford to win them back. The big sales they have had may have had some Japanese car owners buying American again, but based on the latest JD Powers study, those who bought Fords may be wishing they had not. GM had a mix of good and bad reviews by JD Powers.

The big 2, can become top notch builders again, but they will need to spend less time trying to make Wall Street investors happy and work on long terms solutions that may not have the short term pay offs investors seem to want. Old fashion managers need to be released and better systems of management need to be put into place.

Ford & GM may pull a United Airlines move and break the union benefits packages by claiming filing for bankruptcy. It would sad to think how many hard working people will lose their retirement and medical benefits. If Ford or GM does this, it may benefit the companies for the long run. I would say there are more dark days ahead for Ford & GM, but they can make a comeback.

[fpv_gtho]

Toyota is a company that takes it time growing. In North America they came to this market in 1958. Their current strong position in the US Market took them a while to secure, but delivering quality year after year has given them the best reputation any automaker could want. I know people who bought nothing but Toyotas for the last 30 years and they have yet to have a lemon. Most Ford and GM owners, including myself at one time, got at least one lemon. I now drive a 2005 Honda Civic LX. Ford and GM did not offer a good enough car for the price range I was looking at. I paid more for the Honda by $1500 over what I could have gotten from Ford or GM, but the quality gap seemed big enough to make paying more seem worth it. That is the kind of reputation car makers want.


Ford and GM are a long ways from being down for good, but like I said they have been playing catch up for over 20 years and they just have not caught up yet. Their management style is still to short term oriented.

I think they rely more on global consistency than outright dominance in the market. Locally, Toyota had about 19% market share compared to about 17% for Holden and 10% for Ford last year. Out of those 3, Both Holden and Ford were making more money per car than Toyota.

[syko]

maybe they should let ford aus run the whole of ford they seem to be the only ones doing anything right

[Matra et Alpine]

maybe they should let ford aus run the whole of ford they seem to be the only ones doing anything right
or Ford Europre ....

JUNE 2005 UK SALES TOP 5 MODELS
Ford Focus - 12,389 cars sold
Vauxhall Astra - 10,590
Vauxhall Corsa - 9,692
Renault Megane - 8,893
Ford Fiesta - 8,443

as p_b says, US management have lost the plot. Trying to always be cheaper to make the sale is never a good long-term strategy for a manufacturing business. Why European Ford's are more expensive and better quality and top the sales charts consistently.

Based on driving the Monaro, I suspect Oz is the same. Quality is worth the extra money ?????

[Matra et Alpine]

I think they rely more on global consistency than outright dominance in the market. Locally, Toyota had about 19% market share compared to about 17% for Holden and 10% for Ford last year. Out of those 3, Both Holden and Ford were making more money per car than Toyota.
Ford or GM 'global consistency' ?
If so, I'm confused as neither manufacturere takes the best platform into the US market. It was the older Eureopean one 2-5 years that gets the facelift and becomes the 'new' car for the US market. Look at the Focus and Astra !!

[fpv_gtho]

Why European Ford's are more expensive and better quality and top the sales charts consistently.

Based on driving the Monaro, I suspect Oz is the same. Quality is worth the extra money ?????

Perhaps. Ive always put the US market down as being a low cost one due to buyers unwilling to pay for better quality, just going for the higher numbers. That and all the people complaining over the GTO's "sky high" prices, when its the equivalent to what crisis wouldve payed for his SV8 Commodore, about $AUD15K less than "our" Monaros

[syko]

ford europe have good sales but have always struggled to make the big profits as well

[Prius]

Well this is the problem, the big three are too trendy.

back in the early 1990s Ford had the Ball. Just look at My dad's Escort as an example, we bought it used in 1995, with about 20,000 miles. Even though Ford could work on their customer service, the car has given us no major headaches, it has 150,000 miles and apart from a rough idle that can be fixed with new vacuum hoses, it runs perfectly and starts up on the first try, even in the dead of winter, and it has never stalled, left us stranded. I bet I could take it to chicago and it would get there no problems. The 2nd gen Escort/Tracer has reliability that will rival a Honda.

But now Ford is pumping out this new car the "Focus" that almost has as many recalls as the Chevrolet Citation, and there are numerous complaints of wheels falling off, engines catchiing on fire, and the car is just poorly built in general. Billy, What happened?

Then GM had the EV1. They were the first to market a Electric Vehicle to the general public. But because of special parts they used, maitnance costs got too high and gM cancelled the program. If they would have borrowed componets from it's other cars, it wouldn't cost that much for maitnence, like say it needs a new radio, If it borrowed it's radio from the Impala, then all they could do is just order an Impala radio, which is reletively easy to find because the Impala is a very popular car. I'm just peeved because instead of trying again to develop an Electric Vehicle that is easier to maintain, they just flashed their ass to the EV1 and started marketing Hummers. Then they did the whole SUV ploy claiming they have the most SUVS on the market. Now that gas prices are jumping they are now in junk bond status because nobody wants a SUV anymore. But they are blaming the whole thing on health care and not just coming out and said that they made a mistake by focusing all their money on SUVS, while their passenger cars sputter out of the factory with outdated designs and technology that wouldn't even rival a Yugo.

The reason why Honda and Toyota all have it big is because they are flexible. They have gas guzzlers if you want a gas guzzler. But they also market good quality compacts and sedans for someone who accually doesn't want a SUV. Sure they Lose money on every Prius slod, but the giant profits made off of their other cars can make up for it. While GM is claiming they have good reliability, where it is really average, Toyota has already proven that it has good reliability and their cars will still be on the road in 20 years, whil the Gm car will be on the side, dead, rusting out. And Honda has got it made. While GM claims that they are leading the way in technology by developing hydrogen powereed cars, Honda is already selling them in Europe! Plus Honda also is selling a Natural Gas version of it's Civic through dealers in the US. Plus they also offer a special pump you put in your garade, so you can refill the car at home. plus Honda has 3 Hybrids in it's line up while the Big Three only have 1.

Also Hondas are cheap but solid and also the most reliaible on the market. GM has a good reliabile car. The Buick Century was one of the most reliable cars on the market according to Consumer Reports, but they killed it off. and while Hondas and Toyotas are cheap and reliable, GMs and FOrds are expensive and unreliable. Ford is making a big mistake by killing the Taurus too, because the Taurus is a good solid car which is still reliable. It may not have a DVD player, but it is comfy, has lots of legroom (I know for sure, i'm 5 foot 8 inches tall, but I have pleanty of room in the back) The car is a well built car, but they are yanking it off the market for this thing called the Five Hundred, which feels like a Focus on steriods. It is a complete wanna be. Ford is selling ovver 150,000 Tauruses a year, so I see no reason to kill it. That is another problem, the Big three cant stick to one thing. Toyota has been spitting out Corollas for over 50 years, but since they are still selling, they are still making them. The Taurus has sold over 21 million units in it's 20 year run, but even through they still sell like hot cakes, for is killing them. I don;t see why, considering it's replacement is a complete wanna be, even though it is just a big Focus. The Big three are tryong to get us back on teh SUV bandwagon too by using convincing ads because they don't want to see their onvestments go to waste.

Then theires Chrysler. They think they can improve sales by marketing ugly cars that have a suppositive "Hemi" in them then charging 30,000 for one. if I had 30,000, I would buy a bimmer, not a ugly Charger.

[Matra et Alpine]

ford europe have good sales but have always struggled to make the big profits as well
2004 financial headline -- Full-year pre-tax profit for Ford Europe improved more than $1.2 billion

'struggled' ?
Per car profit isn't high across the whole range for sure, but they get the volume for the better quality at a higher price.

[fpv_gtho]

Ford or GM 'global consistency' ?
If so, I'm confused as neither manufacturere takes the best platform into the US market. It was the older Eureopean one 2-5 years that gets the facelift and becomes the 'new' car for the US market. Look at the Focus and Astra !!

Neither, Toyota :p

[Matra et Alpine]

Neither, Toyota :p
aha :confused:
How are Toyota on-the-road prices for the same car across the different geographies ?
OR do they jsut accept that buyers in the US WILL pay more for the Toyota ???

[fpv_gtho]

Not too sure on that one, just based on their profit margins it seems theyre willing to sacrifice profits for sales, just so long as theyre actually making profits. Ford Oz recently said they'd rather the profits over the sales in comparison

[syko]

there is no point having high sales if there isn't the profit to with it
atm ford isn't make the profit it was 5 years ago and so aren't getting much return there investment.

[piston_burner]

There are some who believe the higher volume sales without profits was done to try to improve market share which they hope will impress shareholders and then they have more cars on the road that will need parts. That is one of the many reasons parts are so costly. You would spend triple on building a new car yourself. That is not counting labor. The Wall Street Jounral did a story on that a decade ago.

The recent sales by Ford and GM were to flush over production. Their managers made to many vehicles. That tied up lots of money. If they had sold the vehciles at the prices they were hoping when the vehicles were made, then they would have had a profit. GM and Ford had tons of SUVs and Trucks which are quickly becoming something consumers avoid.

If you look at the gas crisis in the early 1970s, you will see gas guzzling vehicles became almost worthless. Ford and GM had millions tied up in vehcicles they had already built that were not selling. These kind of sales show that Ford and GM over produced and demand is slowing for their products. The short numbers gain will do them little good if they do not manage their production lines better and build better vehicles.

[Matra et Alpine]

There are some who believe the higher volume sales without profits was done to try to improve market share
Dave Packard returned to the board of HP after a number of years after he 'retired' and made a simple statement ...

"If I hear again of anyone selling products to increase their market share, I will fire them"

Market share means nothing.


The recent sales by Ford and GM were to flush over production. Their managers made to many vehicles. That tied up lots of money. If they had sold the vehciles at the prices they were hoping when the vehicles were made, then they would have had a profit. GM and Ford had tons of SUVs and Trucks which are quickly becoming something consumers avoid.
Confirming the 'bad maamgement' tag they seem to be gettign huh !

The short numbers gain will do them little good if they do not manage their production lines better and build better vehicles.
And yet Ford US bring out a 'new' Focus that is brain-damaged compared to the RoW variant. Sounds like they're not :(

[piston_burner]

Confirming the 'bad maamgement' tag they seem to be gettign huh !


I find it sad that top managers at both companies seem to be passing the blame along. In Japan, when you are a top manager and the company sinks, you take the blame and step down. For many decades top managers at Ford and GM thought of themselves like Gods. They lived in fancy offices away from the workers and reality. If I became CEO of Ford or GM, I would start taking away all corporate perks like executive wash rooms and private dinning rooms. Then I would put top management offices in factories, not in office buildings far away from the workers.

Both Ford and GM claim they are making changes, but they are moving to slowly. Toyota and Honda have been very open people seeing how they manage their companies. GM has had executives visiting Toyota plants for decades. I think the they afraid to push the Japanese style of management because it means a lot of work and changes. The sad part is, if they do not change, they will die. Then everyone is unemployed and the United States loses some more big assets.

[syko]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine
And yet Ford US bring out a 'new' Focus that is brain-damaged compared to the RoW variant. Sounds like they're not

i don't understand why they did that. The real new focus is bloody awsome, why wouldn't they just use it worldwide

there's no problems with it, its a improvement on a allready good car it doesn't make sense

cost cutting seems to be getting in the way of good business practices

[Matra et Alpine]

What's scary, p_b, was that Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett used to be seen as the best examples and many companies in the 60s/70s copied their management and business styles. EVERY employee had the same, travelled the same - guess that's too "socialist" for the modern CEOs who think they job entitles them to private jets !!

[scottie300z]

Dave Packard returned to the board of HP after a number of years after he 'retired' and made a simple statement ...

"If I hear again of anyone selling products to increase their market share, I will fire them"

Market share means nothing.



Your right for the most part. But it does mean something when you make profit off of what you sell, but not in this case as they are loosing money.

.....so i guess my post is sorta pointless.

[scottie300z]

i don't understand why they did that. The real new focus is bloody awsome, why wouldn't they just use it worldwide

there's no problems with it, its a improvement on a allready good car it doesn't make sense

cost cutting seems to be getting in the way of good business practices

I think it would actually be cheaper to use one exact model world wide, the reason they dont is b/c they dont think "the real new focus" will sell as well in the US. They are most likely right, as much as id like to have the better performing car it would most likely be more expensive then the one they are going to sell here and do you see Americans paying more for a ford focus even if it does perform better?

The other day motorweek came on and the had the Ford Gt on. And when they got to the price tag they listed it as 111,000 or so. And my mom says, "For a Ford? I dont think so!" Keep in mind that my mom is pretty much from the baby boom generation (im not sure on the exact years) and is the largest market for car sales. She would only pay so much for a ford focus. Granted she isnt the target market for the ford gt, but i think it shows the point. If that much more performance cant justify that price tag could a focus have enough performance to justify a price increase?

I think the problem is the fact that the american car companies seem to always be followers. They have been behind foreign auto makes for some time and they never seem to try to design a vehicle for the future. they always seem to look at what sells now. The retro theme for example, that only helps them now. Of course ford could use the money they make from the mustang to design a vehicle for the future of the company but will they do that? Take bmw for example, you may not like the styling but they are what they are b/c they are always cutting edge and thinking a few steps ahead. The american companies seem to want to play catch up.

[Matra et Alpine]

They are most likely right, as much as id like to have the better performing car it would most likely be more expensive then the one they are going to sell here and do you see Americans paying more for a ford focus even if it does perform better?
Aren't they paying 'more' for the Toyota ??

And my mom says, "For a Ford? I dont think so!" Keep in mind that my mom is pretty much from the baby boom generation (im not sure on the exact years) and is the largest market for car sales. She would only pay so much for a ford focus.
and what astounds me is that as long as they produce poorer quality products for hte market place they weill forever be forced to be the "chepa guy" and carry that image forever !!! They need to break that surely, have buyers like your mom see that it's better quality and DOES justify the price on a Focus or Mondeo or Taurus etc.

I think the problem is the fact that the american car companies seem to always be followers. They have been behind foreign auto makes for some time and they never seem to try to design a vehicle for the future. they always seem to look at what sells now.
What's astounding its that the COMPANIES - GM and Ford - DO have access to excellent platforms and vehicles. They just have to change their mindset on there positioning of their products.

oquote]The retro theme for example, that only helps them now. Of course ford could use the money they make from the mustang to design a vehicle for the future of the company but will they do that? Take bmw for example, you may not like the styling but they are what they are b/c they are always cutting edge and thinking a few steps ahead. The american companies seem to want to play catch up.
The retro in teh US market seems to epitomise the poor management.
Rather than trygin to make the company move forward with better products, better reputation, better prices, better profit. They are despserately trygin to appeal to a 'retro' need thinking it will somehow create a halo-effect for the cr@p being passed off to the public.

[Matra et Alpine]

Your right for the most part. But it does mean something when you make profit off of what you sell, but not in this case as they are loosing money.

.....so i guess my post is sorta pointless.
not really as it is a point too many manangers think is valid.

The point 'better' comapnies realise and act on is that there is nothgin wrong in having a great product which delivers customer quality and good profits AND TAKES MARKET SHARE. But when a product is positioned to TAKE MARKET SHARE then it 9 times out of 10 ends up in a pricing war and because the market share is an objective then the organisation feels that the price has to be reduced to succeed. Hence the product makes market share and the company goes bust. Business economics 101, sadly so few of current gen CEOs seem to grasp it - thankfully HP of rid of Carly Fiorina who reversed every lesson HP taught the world on success !!!!

[piston_burner]

What's scary, p_b, was that Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett used to be seen as the best examples and many companies in the 60s/70s copied their management and business styles. EVERY employee had the same, travelled the same - guess that's too "socialist" for the modern CEOs who think they job entitles them to private jets !!

Being CEO of a major company in the United States is like winning the lottery. Even though these companies are usually owned by shareholders, these CEOs treat them as if they were their own company. Slowly CEO have been getting put into line. The recent World Com CEO had spent twentyt million dollars to buy land near his home so that his natural view would not get ruined by development. It is one thing to buy a $100 steak dinner on the company expense account, but it is criminal to buy gold plated toilets at the company expense. I believe it was Lee Iaccoca who had gold sinks in his New York Office when he was CEO of Chrysler. Some said Lee saved the company then drove it back into the ground wasting money.

There are hundreds of stories out there about CEO waste. The gap between the common worker and top management has grown over 800% in the last 20 years. Shareholders are finally filing law suits and the federal goverment is finally sending some of these jerks to jail.

I have an uncle who is CEO of West America Banks, a medium size chain of banks. He has a desk mixed in with all of the other employees. He does not have a Maybach for a company car. He drives an Acura MDX. What some of these CEOs spend on luxury items at company expense could pay for the MDX.

I wish these CEOs would think about the fact that when they blow a million dollars on luxury items, such has personal jet travel, that the money could have been used to keep 30 workers employed for a year at a okay wage. Considering many of them make over 10 million dollars a year, they can pay for their own private jet rides. I do not believe any CEO is worth more then 5 million a year, but the way the market is set up, they make more money then most celebs or pro athletes. In the 1990s the CEO of Warner Bros took home 100 million dollars while the company showed a 97 million loss. Sounds to me like he should have made 3 million dollars tops and the rest of the money should have stayed with the company.

If Ford and GM want to grow, they should shed many of the perks executives get. Any manager that fights that should wonder what will happen if the company folds. Then you lose more then first class seat on an airline.

[piston_burner]

As far as the European Focus, yes Ford should bring it here. Just like they should have brought the Costworth Escorts here. Subaru USA and Mitsubishi USA got smart and brought their rally editon cars into the United States. People gladly paid over $30,000 for car that were considered econo boxes in normal editions. If a Focus came here and it was in fully European perfromance specs, buyers would pay $30,000 or more for one.

[scottie300z]

Aren't they paying 'more' for the Toyota ??


Yes they are but thats b/c they find aspects of it that they think justify that. They dont find those same aspects in a ford focus even if they brought over the euro version.


As far as the European Focus, yes Ford should bring it here. Just like they should have brought the Costworth Escorts here. Subaru USA and Mitsubishi USA got smart and brought their rally editon cars into the United States. People gladly paid over $30,000 for car that were considered econo boxes in normal editions. If a Focus came here and it was in fully European perfromance specs, buyers would pay $30,000 or more for one.

I somewhat also agree w/ the comment that was made about people paying 30,000+ for the rally cars over here, and i fully agree that ford should have done it long ago. But one obstacle theyd have to overcome is people saying, sure it has a turbo and blah blah blah, but its still a focus. While europeans may be more open minded and accept higher performance versions of regular cars americans are not. So ford should have already brought out those earlier versions like you said so that they would not have to deal w/ this problem. They would still sell some, just like the srt4 neon sold. But it would most likely have to underprice the Evo which is 27,000 or around that i believe. Which should be noted is only a couple thousand more for the non-sti wrx. The thing the focus would have going for it would be the current support of the tuner market, i wouldnt see many other people (older, richer people who arent into the import tuning thing) show intrest in it like they may an sti or evo as those are established and have a nicer reputation than a ford focus.

Which is similar in the srt4 and wrx market. More of those non tuner people tend to opt for the wrx while the srt4 gets the tuner crowd for the most part. With similar performance why wouldnt the srt4 get more of the wrx customers w/ a price of 5 grand less? Mostly image and maybe some quality.

[scottie300z]

and also, ford has the mustang. im not sure on how close the performance of the two would be, but if similar dont you think the majority of americans would choose the sports car that looks more like a sports car. Actually the focus could perform better and cheaper but still get outsold by the mustand due to looks and reputation.

[Matra et Alpine]

Yes they are but thats b/c they find aspects of it that they think justify that. They dont find those same aspects in a ford focus even if they brought over the euro version.
you need to try a 'eurobox' Focus. You'd be surprised. VERY. Think about why the Focus in Europe OUTSELLS the Toyota :)

[Matra et Alpine]

and also, ford has the mustang. im not sure on how close the performance of the two would be, but if similar dont you think the majority of americans would choose the sports car that looks more like a sports car. Actually the focus could perform better and cheaper but still get outsold by the mustand due to looks and reputation.
I think you're focussin gon PERFORMANCE jstu because a new gen Focus coudl be as fast and better ahdnlign than a Mustang doesnt;' mean you have to limit it to that market segment.
I suspect that's the kind of iffy-thinking that hurst GM/Ford.
WHY can't the ordinary buyer have a decent handling, well put toghether, fast car ?
Something that can take the kids and do the shopping, carry the large stuff AND be a joy to drive and deliver great feedback when driven hard ??
Segmentign markets into 'comfortables boxes' - ANOTHER bane of bad management. Market segments are for the custoemrs, not the marketing people. I've seen SOO many managers create market segments which are their OWN ideas fo it rather than actually finding out from customers and being willing to LEARN.

[scottie300z]

I think you're focussin gon PERFORMANCE jstu because a new gen Focus coudl be as fast and better ahdnlign than a Mustang doesnt;' mean you have to limit it to that market segment.
I suspect that's the kind of iffy-thinking that hurst GM/Ford.
WHY can't the ordinary buyer have a decent handling, well put toghether, fast car ?
Something that can take the kids and do the shopping, carry the large stuff AND be a joy to drive and deliver great feedback when driven hard ??
Segmentign markets into 'comfortables boxes' - ANOTHER bane of bad management. Market segments are for the custoemrs, not the marketing people. I've seen SOO many managers create market segments which are their OWN ideas fo it rather than actually finding out from customers and being willing to LEARN.


I see your point and it is a good one.

Its just how many americans care about this:

Something that can take the kids and do the shopping, carry the large stuff AND be a joy to drive and deliver great feedback when driven hard ??

The way i see it there really isnt enough people who take the kids and do the shopping that care about the joy of being able to drive and deliver great feedback when driven hard. most people who do that dont care to drive hard. So how many of these performing focus' would be sold when these people could just buy a cheaper less performing version? And anyways it has to watch its price tag b/c if it gets too expensive then those people who do like some response when driving combined w/ room could just get a bmw 3 series for 30 grand.

[Matra et Alpine]

So how many of these performing focus' would be sold when these people could just buy a cheaper less performing version?
SEE the difference is that for every design house and manufacturere EXCEPT the US ( and the Romaniona Dacia plant :) ) they deliver the better chassis and handlign for the same money as the 'cheaper'.
Years of the power game has created a view that speed is what makes a good car and not handling - until you spend LOTS of money.
I still contend that IF you got the chance to enjoy the handling then the realisation fo performance isn't about more power making more speed needing more metal making more weight causing worse handlign is NOT the way it has to be. So it's only a few hundred dollars difference to design and make decent chassis and suspension.

THEN they can opt to 'upgrade' by buying the performacne version, or by adding on later.

And anyways it has to watch its price tag b/c if it gets too expensive then those people who do like some response when driving combined w/ room could just get a bmw 3 series for 30 grand.
The decent Focus is ,uch cheaper than the starting BMW !!
See the UK sales to grasp the impact of a decent car.

[scottie300z]

The decent Focus is ,uch cheaper than the starting BMW !!
See the UK sales to grasp the impact of a decent car.

I was refering to them making a vehicle competing w/ the sti and evo. More closely tied to the rally version for around 30,000. Awd and such. I dont remember who suggested them building it. but someone earlier (yeah im lazy and dont feel like reading back) said itd be nice if they'd do that. I may have read it wrong or whatever, if i did then i apologize.

And just for the record i never said they shouldnt bring over the new focus, i just tried to answer the question of why they havent. And basicly thats b/c they dont feel it would be as profitable, as in they dont think that the American consumers want that version. And i have said my reasons earlier. Myself i wish they would, i think itd be nice if they took some steps to turn themselves around and make as well as bring better quality products to america. They just have work to do to overcome some obstacles in order to make it more profitable.

I think that they have done research and such and found that their consumers dont want it but i think thats just b/c the vast majority dont even know that it could make their life better. For example, one of my friend's dad thinks the chevy cavalier b/c of handling. they dont handle that well. See to Americans the focus already is a good handling car, and they dont see a reason in getting a more performance oriented version. I mean, if they already have something good how can the other versions improve their life? Ofcourse you and i know that it would but they dont know that and therefore when ford runs research they find the Majority of the American public does not want a new version. I would like it if ford brought it over and pushed it really really well. Their commercials and other advertising suck, and have for sometime. The last focus commercial ive seen showed the focus sitting by the sidewalk begging its owner to drive it, not bad so far but it takes a turn for the worse. It then touts that its 160 hp engine cant be tamed. How is 160 hp going to sell a car in America? its not. And what is worse is their commercials for other cars are just as bad and even less imaginative. They dont make people want to drive or get cars and is another reason they are loosing money.

And as for the better performance is mainly handling and not power, i agree but the American public doesnt. The like beef, and raw horsepower whatever raw horsepower is. I think if you look at the vast majority of American cars (throughout history) you will see that they arent really designed around handling but grunt. And that is b/c that is what sells in america, if it didnt then they wouldnt make it like that.

[piston_burner]

I think the idea that the Focus name could not be attached to a $40,000 high performance version and sell I think is under estimating the market. When the European Escort had a perfromance edition, people were going through the hassel of importing them into the United States under the show car clause. This limited the amount of miles someone could drive a car each year. I spoke to a dealer here in the SF Bay Area that had a convertible Escort that I could have bought for $35,000. He claimed he had sold a few of those. Because it was a salesman, he could have been full of crap.

The key to selling a $40,000 Focus in the United States is making a car that has great perfromance. There are people who would love to blow away a Porsche 911 or Corvette in a Focus. That is one of the reasons people dump tens of thousands into Honda Civics. It is amazing how fast some Civics are after getting a major tuner makeover.

One car that was proof there is could be a line between making a fast car using a econo platform and making a fast car using to cheap of a car, we the SHOGUN. That was a Ford Festiva with a Ford Tarus SHO engine stuffed into it. That car did not handle that well. It was more like a micro drag racing car.

I still say a Euro edition Focus with the full performance package will sell well here. If it is with in a few thousands dollars of a EVO or WRX STi. then it should do just fine.

Right now Ford in America is more worried about making better cars over all. The latest low ratings from JD Powers is hurting them.

[Spastik_Roach]

What If GM didn't sell any vehicles? That means they wouldn't lose any money! :D

[scottie300z]

The shogun? Im not sure but didnt they only make a handful of those? So how is that supposed to show that an improved and way more expensive focus would sell? And how many people were trying to import the performance escort? You have to think bigger numbers here then just a few enthusiasts, there arent enough of those to support a car coming in the market.

And yeah people love buying their civics and such but another big reason for that besides being able to blow the doors off of a porsche is that they did it thierself and their car is personalized by them, and they can buy all this extra stuff for their car b/c the car is cheap. If they were to buy a more expensive car they would have less money to do so. And if a car is proven to perform that well from the factory doesnt that defeat the whole purpose for those people? Then it wouldnt be as much of a surprise to the porsche owners.

Im not sure how much the current euro focus is but i dont think it would be priced as much as the subaru and evo. The most expensive trim of the focus is 17,000 and i dont see the euro additions costing 10 grand. so that one may do ok, but a full awd rally type version for around the price of 40k is asking a bit much of the american public. Notice the age of the civic tuners, they dont have 40k. And then look at what the people who have 40k drive, i wouldnt expect it to change if ford brought out that version.

[Matra et Alpine]

And if a car is proven to perform that well from the factory doesnt that defeat the whole purpose for those people? Then it wouldnt be as much of a surprise to the porsche owners.
THe appeal of these cars in the markets they are sold is that the owner can buy the cheap car and it doesnt' look a lot different from the expesive one and with simple additions can match the handling of the top one and even engien upgrades to match the performance. Just as all those Civic owers do today. There are loads of compaies who produce the kind of add-on performance parts jsut liek the Civic guys in the US.
Burton quite often offer things even the factory can't match :)
So the TOP car gives the iamge of performacne and the owern decides how much to spend. Some kids drive around in 1.4s dreaming their in RSs !! Mom gets her low running costs, kid gets his/her "look" and the handling isnt' 10 years behidn the times

Im not sure how much the current euro focus is but i dont think it would be priced as much as the subaru and evo. The most expensive trim of the focus is 17,000 and i dont see the euro additions costing 10 grand. so that one may do ok, but a full awd rally type version for around the price of 40k is asking a bit much of the american public. Notice the age of the civic tuners, they dont have 40k. And then look at what the people who have 40k drive, i wouldnt expect it to change if ford brought out that version.
$20K is the entry price for the Focus in the UK.
( but as your sharp intake of breath ends, we pay LOTS more for ALL our cars over here )
$14K gets you the Ford Fiesta, another car with a 'sporty' image - though now a little 'aged'.
$30K gets the top of the range ST version of the Focus.
So as often pointed out direct comparisons aren't that easy to do as the UK pricing is skewed to the top end and subject to currency problems - the US $ is strongly devalued against the £ and euro ( oh for the days of $1.10 to the pound :) ) Just 5 years ago those prices would have translated 25% LOWER than listed.
THe STi UK spec Scoobie is $50K.
BUT you aren't going to see Ford produce a viable WRC-based Group N car as it's not in their "market segment" :) for the ordinary public. BUT the STs can push on just as fast on tarmac :D

[scottie300z]

BUT you aren't going to see Ford produce a viable WRC-based Group N car as it's not in their "market segment" for the ordinary public.

this is actually what ive been saying, and like i said above the current euro focus may sell in the us, priced around 20k maybe a bit above.

[Matra et Alpine]

this is actually what ive been saying, and like i said above the current euro focus may sell in the us, priced around 20k maybe a bit above.
my point and why I ".." the comment was THAT is just Fords marketing view.

WOULD people buy a $50K Ford Focus 400bhp, 0-60 4 sec, superb handling car ? Ford US thinks no. Ford Europe keeps producing concepts and prototypes and funding the Ford Focus WRC :(

Would a decent Ford Focus range from a $14K entry to a $50K muscle-car beater work or not ? It sure did here when Ford UK were allowed to develop the RS versions at Halewood/Dagenham. They couldnt' make enough !!!!!

Ford US doesn't think there is a 'market' and in the meantime losing sales to comapnies who don't think that way. For me it's obvious. Just liek the screw up in F1. Predicted it as soon as Ford said they were buying out JYS :(

[scottie300z]

Ford US doesn't think there is a 'market' and in the meantime losing sales to comapnies who don't think that way. For me it's obvious. Just liek the screw up in F1. Predicted it as soon as Ford said they were buying out JYS :(

Would a decent Ford Focus range from a $14K entry to a $50K muscle-car beater work or not ? It sure did here when Ford UK were allowed to develop the RS versions at Halewood/Dagenham. They couldnt' make enough !!!!!




Who are they loosing sells to? there aren't any $50k muscle-car beaters. And i just want to makes sure, but we are talking american dollars here right? ive been guessing we are since we are talking mainly US and w/ the use of the dollar sign. But if you can get an STI for 30K why buy a ford focus for 50K? thats a 20K difference which could be used to buy a whole other car! Thats more than a M3, even if they made the performance better on the focus, but why wouldnt people just buy the car w/ the better name, better quality, and better social stigma? And i wouldnt say b/c the civic follower type person likes to blow the doors off of those percieved better cars, b/c those people dont have the money for that. And what fun is it beating those cars when your car cost more?

It may work in europe but i feel like i have to remind you that we are talking about Americans here. And they are a bit different.

[VtecMini]

The way i see it there really isnt enough people who take the kids and do the shopping that care about the joy of being able to drive and deliver great feedback when driven hard. most people who do that dont care to drive hard.So just to clarify, you're saying that people either enjoy driving... Or have children? How are they mutually exclusive?

[Matra et Alpine]

Who are they loosing sells to? there aren't any $50k muscle-car beaters. And i just want to makes sure, but we are talking american dollars here right? ive been guessing we are since we are talking mainly US and w/ the use of the dollar sign. But if you can get an STI for 30K why buy a ford focus for 50K? thats a 20K difference which could be used to buy a whole other car!
The figures given are for the UK cars converted to US$ prices. You can't directly compare prices in the US and Europe.
Hence why I explained that that's not ideal as the UK has the most expensive car prices.
IF there was a Ford Focus WRC it would be a muscle car beater. Check out the Top Gear episode when Allan McNish and Colin Mcrae raced a Stewart F1 and a WRC Focus at Silverstone :)
You can get an STI for $30K ? There you go, see the price differential that exists in the UK. I gave you the UK spec STi converted to US$ price the same as Focus prices given.
So it's not unreasonable to picture that the difference in the STi in the UK and in the US prices would be mirrored in the Ford pricing. So - as I would suspect anyway - the Focus would be cheaper than the converted $ prices I gave.

Thats more than a M3, even if they made the performance better on the focus, but why wouldnt people just buy the car w/ the better name, better quality, and better social stigma? And i wouldnt say b/c the civic follower type person likes to blow the doors off of those percieved better cars, b/c those people dont have the money for that. And what fun is it beating those cars when your car cost more?
I've not managed to explain it very well.
You talk about name, quality, stigma and THAT IS THE POINT. As long as Ford keeping making cr@p then they can never break that and make more profit per car. They need to break the cycle somewhere and current Ford board dont' have the courage to make that move. Reminds me of the BSA motorbike company in the 60s. Once the WORLDS LARGEST bike manufacturer. Dead within 10 years of hiding their head in the sand !!
I gave you the examples of how people use cars in the UK market and how Ford and GM make very good cars and manage to sell the same range successfully to the families and the boy-racers and the serious drivers.

It may work in europe but i feel like i have to remind you that we are talking about Americans here. And they are a bit different.
Only if you're treated that way :)
When the Japanese cars first came to the US the industry poo-pooed them in exactly the same way. They woke up quickly enough to realise THAT mistake but seems like long-term memory isn't a strong thing in the Ford/GM US boardrooms :)
They are losing and seem to lack the courage to realistically ask WHY and to make changes to counter that. Look at how Renault put Ghosn into Nissan and made a big difference. His turn around of the group is widely used in business courses and MBAs to go through customer focus, change identification and management.

[scottie300z]

So just to clarify, you're saying that people either enjoy driving... Or have children? How are they mutually exclusive?

No its not an either or thing, some people wouldnt drive hard w/o children. My point was that those people who take the kids and run arrands and such, or in other words those who would need the space. Couldnt reallly care that much about driving a car hard. Why do you think there are so many trucks in America? Or Suburbans? those arent necessarily the best handling and most rewarding drives. But you know what, they dont care.

And matra, my point was that they never should, it was that right now they wouldnt make that much money on it b/c of their poor work in their image or whatever that you seem to agree on as well. I think that they should work on their other areas first so that making a car such as a wrc inspired focus is more appealing to the public. Right now i think that such a care would not fare well and they dont either and thats why they havent. Im sure they are trying to improve their image and such but they seem to not be doing what they need to. Im not saying such a car wouldnt sell but they should work on some other things first so that the car will actually be more successful. And your nissan example is pretty much what im talking about, they should rework the models they have so they are successful before bringing over the newer ones. LIke nissan did w/ the altima and maxima before releasing the Z and then the Titan.

[Matra et Alpine]

No its not an either or thing, some people wouldnt drive hard w/o children. My point was that those people who take the kids and run arrands and such, or in other words those who would need the space. Couldnt reallly care that much about driving a car hard. Why do you think there are so many trucks in America? Or Suburbans? those arent necessarily the best handling and most rewarding drives. But you know what, they dont care.
So only one person in a family ever drives one car ?
We've 5 vehicles and with the exception of the Alpine everybody drives everything dependant on what the need is. ( oh and the bike, my daughters dont' get on it :D )

And matra, my point was that they never should, it was that right now they wouldnt make that much money on it b/c of their poor work in their image or whatever that you seem to agree on as well. I think that they should work on their other areas first so that making a car such as a wrc inspired focus is more appealing to the public. Right now i think that such a care would not fare well and they dont either and thats why they havent. Im sure they are trying to improve their image and such but they seem to not be doing what they need to. Im not saying such a car wouldnt sell but they should work on some other things first so that the car will actually be more successful. And your nissan example is pretty much what im talking about, they should rework the models they have so they are successful before bringing over the newer ones. LIke nissan did w/ the altima and maxima before releasing the Z and then the Titan.
erm, THAT is where this started.
Ford US could take the current gen European Focus TODAY. A recognised market leader adn very realible car. Instead they've introduce the OLD version to the US market as 'new' :) WHen you look back since the first FWD came on the market Ford have taken that appraoch. It's stupid.
THe 'wrc' example was a side issue only in response to the STi comment.
Ford would sell at least 1000 'ordinary' Foci for each WRX equivalent ( assuming the old RS ratios would happen again )
So wth decent management those 1000s woudl be commanding a higher price BECAUSE they DEMONSTRATE higehr quality.
If they dont break out of the spiral it IS only downward.
The GT isnt' going to convince ANYONE to buy a fwd family car is it :D

[scottie300z]

So only one person in a family ever drives one car ?
We've 5 vehicles and with the exception of the Alpine everybody drives everything dependant on what the need is. ( oh and the bike, my daughters dont' get on it :D )



In America sharing of cars does not really happen often. There really isnt a reason for that here, especially w/ households where both parents hold jobs. People tend to have their own cars and stick with that and maybe clarify. Wives to their own, husbands to their own, and children to their own, there really doesnt come a reason often for the father or mother to drive the child's car or vice versa. Now ofcourse there are exceptions to every rule but you cant make money just on exceptions. I think it should be also noted that the VAST majority of driving in the US is on residential roads and highways, so improved handling performance can really go unnoticed by alot of Americans who dont care to test that as there arent that many roads like you have in europe and its realistic to say that many americans never see a challenging type road in their lives. (once again there are exceptions to the rule, but the majority of the american population is in cities and closely outlaying suburbs and the terrarin really isnt challenging)


erm, THAT is where this started.
Ford US could take the current gen European Focus TODAY. A recognised market leader adn very realible car. Instead they've introduce the OLD version to the US market as 'new' WHen you look back since the first FWD came on the market Ford have taken that appraoch. It's stupid..

I realize this i just wanted to make sure that you werent thinking that i was just saying a focus of that type would never work. I sort of felt like you were, not sure so i thought id just state that. And ive said earlier that they should bring the current euro focus over as it wouldnt really be priced much more and would work. But it was the 30k+ version that i was saying might not work right at the moment w/o some other work dealing w/ the company and positioning.

[Matra et Alpine]

Wives to their own, husbands to their own, and children to their own,
my kids are always wanting to drive my Alpine :)
Maybe we're not 'average' for either side of the Atlantic !!!

But it was the 30k+ version that i was saying might not work right at the moment w/o some other work dealing w/ the company and positioning.
ah right. Yeah they'd really have to make the lower and mid have the quality to sell well at profit before investing in a top end considering the quantities sold of each.

[piston_burner]

The shogun? Im not sure but didnt they only make a handful of those? So how is that supposed to show that an improved and way more expensive focus would sell?

You miss read that or I was not clear enough. I said it showed it crossed the line. The Festiva was ugly to start with and the handling of the Shogun was not good. The Focus is not a bad looking car and if it is a tight package that can compete with Corvettes, BMWs, and Porsches, people will pay $35,000 for a Focus.

[piston_burner]

If Ford would produce more Focus RS Euro spec cars, they should be able to lower costs based on the formula of volume lowers cost per unit. I believe Ford could sell as many as 10,000 units in the United States of a Ford Focus RS priced $30,000 to $40,000. There are a lot Sports Car Club of America events that people could race those cars on the weekends. If it could be a track car or rally car that you can drive to work on the weekdays, it will sell well.

[SlickHolden]

No shit i think GM needs more of the Aussie cars sent over;). Even FoMoCo needs more Aussie cars. Maybe that's the problem they are stuck in a time warp and what worked in the past doesnt work in the future;)