Comments | nikeratos: Ford sucks too!

nikeratos

Ford sucks too!

Nov 08, 2008 23:38

Ford is in trouble too. Let's find three things wrong with them while we're at it. I'll throw in pictures this time to paint a more precise picture. Here's why Ford's in trouble:

1. Ford Flex.

( Read more... )

Comments 7

Ford anonymous November 10 2008, 13:34:33 UTC

Mr Foxy,
Ford builds vehicles that are as reliabale, safer, better looking and with better gas mileage than Honda.
Instead of dredging up pictures of cars Ford no longer even makes, how about a picture of the Fusion Hybrid - one of the most advanced and fuel efficient cars in the country.
Whilst the looks of Flex might not be to your taste, they are to the taste of a great many people - over half of all Flex customers are new to the Ford brand which speaks volumes.
Please try to view all the facst before posting - times are tough for all car makers right now and support when they are doing things right would be appreciated.

Re: Ford nikeratos November 11 2008, 02:58:34 UTC

Did you even read my post?

Re: Ford nikeratos November 11 2008, 03:16:45 UTC

I've taken a bit to cool off so I can legitimately respond to your post.
Fords have never been as reliable as Toyotas or Hondas. They're known for their outstanding reliability. Check consumerreports.com, they've got the info there. I don't know where you get your info from. Made it up perchance?
Same goes with safety ratings.
Like I said, did you even read my post? I would never buy a Fusion, even if it is a Hybrid, because it's not an American car. It's made in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. Do some research and you'll find out I'm right. The Honda Civic Hybrid is made in Ohio and Indiana, by the way.
The Ford Flex does look alright, but like I said, did you read the article? That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying they're trying to copy the Scion and doing a bad job of it. There's no way I would buy a Flex over an xB.
So this is proof, for me, that they're NOT doing things right, and this is why they're not doing as well as companies as, say, I don't know, Toyota or Honda. Funny how those names keep popping up.

anonymous March 2 2009, 05:21:26 UTC

I'd just like to point out that Ford's reliability has recently overtaken that of Nissan and is very close to Toyota, which has been the leader in recent years ( ... )

nikeratos March 2 2009, 08:42:01 UTC

First of all, Nissan's reliability can be shoved aside since they make, for example, the Armada, which is statistically the most unreliable car on the road today...last I checked Consumer Reports called its reliability, and I'm not making this up, "abysmal." So to say something is more reliable than Nissan is to say that it's more reliable than an Alfa Romeo from the 70s with 150k miles on the clock ( ... )

anonymous March 3 2009, 03:01:56 UTC

As a brand Nissan does well. The problems per 1000 cars was within a dozen of Toyota in the ranking I was looking at.
Ford might not be able to continue as is forever, but its in the best condition of the big 3 to make it through the recession.
Again, I'm not too troubled by the gas mileage and considering that you've noted the large amount of old explorers still on the road, it seems as though their reliability problems might not be so bad.
Ford also owns (or owned/had a majority stake in) Volvo.
I agree that Volvo makes quality cars and I like the S40 very much, but it's hardly fair to suggest an XC90 over a Ford SUV. For starters, the XC90 will set you back at least 25% more than an equally equipped explorer, which would still have more interior space. Since you seem to be pretty hung up on gas mileage, the basic XC90 gets the same gas mileage as the larger explorer and expedition, and the V8 version actually gets worse.
As for reliability, CR gives the XC90 the same rating as the expedition: "Good"

nikeratos March 3 2009, 22:58:12 UTC

Good points. Usually when people post in my blog, I don't see points well made ( ... )