• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Doomed! Ford makes $12.75Bn loss

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Doomed! Ford makes $12.75Bn loss

    Ouch!
    Ford's full-year loss reached $12.75 billion, exceeding the previous record of $7.39 billion in 1992. Dearborn, Michigan- based Ford had net income of $1.44 billion in 2005 and hasn't been profitable since the second quarter of that year amid falling sales of pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
    Bloomberg
    Drivel is my speciality

    #2
    So if income is roughly one tenth of the costs does that mean my new focus is actually a £150,000 motor

    Comment


      #3
      What were Rover losses like to send it under - in comparison to its income?
      Rule Number 1 - Assuming that you have a valid contract in place always try to get your poo onto your timesheet, provided that the timesheet is valid for your current contract and covers the period of time that you are billing for.

      I preferred version 1!

      Comment


        #4
        They based their entire range in the U.S. on large gas-gusslers. Now the tide has turned and it could be years before they have a reasonable small car range.

        Has GM reported...I bet their loss is nearly as big.
        McCoy: "Medical men are trained in logic."
        Spock: "Trained? Judging from you, I would have guessed it was trial and error."

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by lilelvis2000
          They based their entire range in the U.S. on large gas-gusslers. Now the tide has turned and it could be years before they have a reasonable small car range.

          Has GM reported...I bet their loss is nearly as big.
          GM is next week.
          Drivel is my speciality

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by lilelvis2000
            They based their entire range in the U.S. on large gas-gusslers.
            They should switch entire production to diesel engines - they have more torque (ideal for 4x4) and use a lot less fuel, plus more of diesel can be made from same barrel of oil, this can cut down fuel usage by 25-30%, which is a huge figure for USA.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AtW
              They should switch entire production to diesel engines - they have more torque (ideal for 4x4) and use a lot less fuel, plus more of diesel can be made from same barrel of oil, this can cut down fuel usage by 25-30%, which is a huge figure for USA.
              Very anti Diesel over there:
              Nationally, trucks are moving an increasingly large portion of freight, and most heavy trucks are fueled by diesel. From 1950 to 1985 the miles driven by trucks in the United States increased by 235 percent and tons carried by trucks increased by 169 percent.22 Trucks are now carrying a heavier load while traveling farther, increasing their overall emissions. In 1995, over half a million diesel trucks and over 20,000 diesel buses were sold in the United States, representing a doubling of annual sales since 1980.23 A total of around six million heavy trucks, tractor-trailers, and buses were registered for use in the United States in 1995.24 That same year, diesel vehicles nationwide consumed 37 billion gallons of diesel fuel.25 California's 1995 diesel fuel consumption was roughly 2.1 billion gallons.26 California and other western states have experienced higher than average growth in motor vehicle travel and have also experienced increased total vehicle emissions.27

              Diesel exhaust is a major contributor to various types of air pollution, including smog-forming oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and fine particles (PM2.5). In 1996, diesel exhaust accounted for over one quarter of the 23,393,000 tons per year of NOx pollution produced nationally.28 In California, an estimated 26 percent of particles (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in outdoor air come from diesel engines.11 Exhaust from heavy-duty diesel engines contains between 100 to 200 times more small particles than gasoline engine exhaust.29
              With a lot of determination, we can make the transition away from the toxic technology of diesel to cleaner fuels. Until then, the health of our urban communities lies in the balance.
              http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ebd/chap7.asp
              How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

              Comment


                #8
                Diesels made in 2007 are a lot better than those made in 1996 or before: newer filters produce really good results in respect of NOx and particles, certainly not perfect, but surely petrl exhausts are not perfect either? Reducing fuel usage by 20-30%, probably more since diesel engines are more suitable for light trucks (SUVs) that Americans love so much, this will save a lot of dosh, reduce dependency on backwards states whose main asset is oil, and allow to focus more on how to improve diesel engines further.

                Plus you can use bio-diesel adding some of the oil made from crops, this will improve exhausts nicely as well as reduce need for oil further.

                I think 50% of car sales in the UK (and Europe) are diesels now, for SUVs diesel engine is a must have.

                Comment


                  #9
                  They should never have scrapped the Cortina.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X