โSep-14-2017 10:05 AM
โSep-20-2017 08:09 PM
โSep-20-2017 05:38 PM
itguy08 wrote:
Actually they are tied. That's comparing all of Ford, including some stinkers like the Focus and Fiesta DCT's vs Ram.
โSep-20-2017 05:21 PM
Bionic Man wrote:
This post is about trucks, do you really want to compare that with the quality ratings? If that is important to you, I hope you remember that RAM has been scoring higher than your beloved Blue Oval.
Sergio has pursued a merger (which could be good for everyone if it was the right partner), but has backed off. VW and Porsche merged a few years back, are they worse off because of it?
Stop your bashing. I am sure I am not the only one who has grown weary of it.
โSep-20-2017 05:20 PM
โSep-20-2017 05:10 PM
itguy08 wrote:Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
One, the "first bailout" was not done by the Government it was done by the employees! They put up money from their retirement fund to bail out the company not the Government. The only thing the Government did was OK it and guarantee the loan if Chrysler could not repay it. It was paid back early and at 100%! Not one dime of tax payer money was used!
Then why was Iacocca begging for $$ From You and I in the 80's? Chrysler was days away from dying, and the gov't should have said "Buh Bye" then.Unfortunately for GM and Chrysler they did not have their original family's running their companies anymore.
About the only factual thing in your post. Yes, Ford mortgaged the bank, and the Ford family still controls the company.As to the QC remarks, I would put our quality up against almost any other car company out there. I can say first hand that FCA is 100% commented to building a quality product and like every other car company out there we do make some mistakes. The problem is when you are only selling half the vehicles that some others are selling it doesn't take much to skew your numbers.
Of course you would - they pay you every week. Every single place that rates quality and long term dependability has FCA vehicles at or near the bottom. Now either they are all out to get you or there's something to it. I go for the latter. Ford and GM have had some bad years and the ratings show it. FCA, as a whole has been scraping the bottom for, what 20 years now?
Chrysler has always made garbage and probably always will until they (finally) go out of business.
Ask yourself this - if Chrysler was so great and FCA was in such awesome financial shape, why would Sergio be selling off bits of the company and begging for consolidation. GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Mazda, VW, Subaru, etc don't have the same outlook. Nor do they need it.
โSep-20-2017 05:01 PM
Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:
One, the "first bailout" was not done by the Government it was done by the employees! They put up money from their retirement fund to bail out the company not the Government. The only thing the Government did was OK it and guarantee the loan if Chrysler could not repay it. It was paid back early and at 100%! Not one dime of tax payer money was used!
Unfortunately for GM and Chrysler they did not have their original family's running their companies anymore.
As to the QC remarks, I would put our quality up against almost any other car company out there. I can say first hand that FCA is 100% commented to building a quality product and like every other car company out there we do make some mistakes. The problem is when you are only selling half the vehicles that some others are selling it doesn't take much to skew your numbers.
โSep-20-2017 05:33 AM
ggoat!!! wrote:
EcoDiesels run EXTREMELY HOT and FAIL while towing over time.
Research this. The evidence, particularly regarding this engine in the Grand Cherokee, is out there in droves.
A particularly enlightening story was written on the Airstream forums about failure going up 550 in Colorado. He got rid of his EcoDiesel soon after his engine caught fire in the middle of the road.
Stay away. FAR away from Fiat.
โSep-19-2017 02:53 PM
Grit dog wrote:
^Why I can't leave this forum......like "Days of our Lives" for men!
One train wreck after another.....
โSep-19-2017 02:28 PM
โSep-19-2017 01:45 PM
blofgren wrote:
You go right ahead and spin it any way you see fit.....:S
โSep-19-2017 12:20 PM
mich800 wrote:blofgren wrote:FishOnOne wrote:
BTW... A 2013 XL F150 V6.... yeah OK.
Actually a 2012 F-150 S/C 4x4 XLT so it's actually quite a nice truck, thank you.You zinged me. I stand corrected. That does make comparing a 2003 to a 2013 valid.
Well, obviously there is a bit of a lack of comprehension here. I am comparing the build of the trucks. That would be fit, finish, etc. Back in 2003, Ford definitely had the upper hand on Dodge in this category, but not anymore. Does that break it down enough for you guys or does the blue Kool-aid still affect the thought process? :W
Ok, so you said " I am extremely happy with my 2013 Ram 3500 and all of my previous Fords had NOTHING over it."
But what you meant was in 2003 Ford was better than 2003 Dodge and in 2013 Ram is better than 2013 Ford. Not what you wrote 2013 Ram is better than 2003 Ford.
See the difference.
โSep-19-2017 07:49 AM
โSep-19-2017 01:22 AM
blofgren wrote:FishOnOne wrote:
BTW... A 2013 XL F150 V6.... yeah OK.
Actually a 2012 F-150 S/C 4x4 XLT so it's actually quite a nice truck, thank you.You zinged me. I stand corrected. That does make comparing a 2003 to a 2013 valid.
Well, obviously there is a bit of a lack of comprehension here. I am comparing the build of the trucks. That would be fit, finish, etc. Back in 2003, Ford definitely had the upper hand on Dodge in this category, but not anymore. Does that break it down enough for you guys or does the blue Kool-aid still affect the thought process? :W
โSep-18-2017 07:42 PM
mich800 wrote:
You zinged me. I stand corrected. That does make comparing a 2003 to a 2013 valid.
You may live a longer or at the very least a happier life if you don't take every non 100% pro FCA comment personally.