This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Actually, in the 2000's alone, there were six companys to put out hybrid designs before Ford. By automotive market does the article mean "the American automotive market"? -- Cynops3 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In many cases Ford motor company is considered to be a European manufacturer aswell as a American manufacturer. There are many Ford models that are made for the European market only, e.g Ford Ka, Ford Fiesta. And Henry Ford had come from Ireland (At that time part of the UK), which means the company was also established by a European man.
80.192.246.56 ( talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Falcon-Eagle2007 80.192.246.56 ( talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ford motor company is not a "European manufacturer" nor is it considered one. Henry Ford is not a "European man" He was born on a farm near Detroit Michigan in the United States of America. It wouldn't matter if Henry Ford wasn't American because the company was founded and headquartered in the USA. If Ford motor company was considered a European manufacturer because they design and build certain models exclusevely for the European market then Nissan, Honda/Acura, Volkswagen, Toyota, ect, would all be considered American manufacturers aswell because they all design and build certain models exclusively in/for North America. -- ?sihtdaeruoynac ( talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Henry Ford emphatically did NOT provide higher wages. What he did was ADVERTISE higher wages. Darned few people got the "$5/day wage" -- the number of requirements for that, including occasional surprise inspection of the household, was enormous. The advertisement of the high waves brought huge numbers of workers that could be given the normal low wages. Might this not be removed? Davert ( talk) 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Europe
History
"It owns the Jaguar and/or Land Rover car plants in Britain; Ford's former Halewood Assembly Plant was converted for production of the Jaguar X-Type and currently also assembles Land-Rover's Freelander 2. Jaguars are also assembled at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham while the rest of the Land-Rover range is assembled at Solihull, near Birmingham."
Not any more it doesn't!
Brands
Marques
"Overall the Ford Motor Company controls the following operational car marques: Daimler, Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercury, and Volvo; Daimler and Volvo are currently part of the Premier Automotive Group."
Daimler/Jaguar/Land Rover: Not any more it doesn't!!
Can anyone explain the weird references to 'Daimler', especially the second one re. PAG please?
91.108.20.100 ( talk) 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
www.daimlercars.com contains the phrase "Daimler is a division of Jaguar Cars." of course! MP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.190.55 ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
'Daimler' in the U.K. is part of the Jaguar Cars business, just sold to TATA of course; but realistically Daimler is not an "operational car marque" in the same way as Volvo (cars) is! So please delete the weird references to both 'Daimler' and PAG - as neither of them really exist operationally. This discussion really reminds me of Monty Python: Daimler/PAG is a dead parrot!
HISTORY: "Ford's former Halewood Assembly Plant was converted for production of the Jaguar X-Type and currently also assembles Land-Rover's Freelander 2. Jaguars are also assembled at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham while the rest of the Land-Rover range is assembled at Solihull, near Birmingham." This paragraph can be deleted as all three plants belong to TATA Motors!!!
91.110.190.55 ( talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sound unkind to Ford as I can still remember meeting friendly guys from Ford of Europe at the BL showrooms in Piccadilly, London in 1973 but the following phrase in the introduction needs to be re-visited: "Ford now encompasses many global brands, including Lincoln and Mercury of the U.S., and Volvo of Sweden. Ford also owns a one-third controlling interest in Mazda." I would dispute "many" in favour of 'some', to put it mildly? I don't think either Lincoln or Mercury can be counted as anything other than as 'American' brands....
I suggest that only Volvo itself can be counted as Ford's additional [wholly-owned] global brand - do you agree? I know it is Swedish, but is being assembled in more than one country. Can you tell me exactly where Lincolns and Mercurys are being made/sold these days please?
91.110.190.55 ( talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This quote contradicts the Fordism page: " Henry Ford's combination of highly efficient factories and low prices revolutionized manufacturing and came to be known around the world as Fordism by 1914." Fordism there is described in a few ways but two key components are standardization of product and replacement of craftsmen with low-skill labor, neither of which is mentioned in this sentence. Would anyone care to revise that sentence, other than me? Davert ( talk) 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason Davert that almost every one of your revisions on the Ford page show Ford in a poor light? I read the Ford article and it seems like it is largely negative as well, largely listing failures rather than successes. Perhaps this is a result of only citing what the media reports, but it seems like the overall quality of the article is pretty lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 ( talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I just tried to verify the J.D. Power thing and found that Ford does not have an especially high ranking. Can someone else tell me whether I'm missing something? http://www.jdpower.com/autos/car-ratings/ Davert ( talk) 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The statistics shown on the Ford article are both linked directly to their source articles. What's the problem here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 ( talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the opening paragraph to the following; the changes are shown in bold (below);
"Ford Motor Company is an American multinational corporation and the world's third largest automaker based on worldwide vehicle sales. Based in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, the automaker was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. Ford's overseas business encompasses only one truly global brand Volvo of Sweden other than Ford itself, but it also owns a one-third controlling interest in Mazda of Japan and a smallholding in former subsidary Aston Martin of England. Its former UK subsidaries Jaguar and Land Rover were sold to Tata Motors of India in March 2008, both companies having been through many changes of ownership in the recent past. Lincoln and Mercury are also Ford's leading brands in the USA, but not in the rest of the world. Buying, investing in and selling small European car companies has been a costly exercise for Ford and is unlikely to be repeated as Ford concentrate on their USA businesses."
Without going into too much detail,this reflects only some of the recent actions necessary for Ford to avoid possible 'bankruptcy', which a senior Ford executive has stated "is not an option" for Ford. (No doubt Jaguar/Land-Rover benefited from their years of Ford's owernship.)
As longtime observer and participant in the UK industry, I follow Ford's changes with interest, especially as I do have my own copy of Robert Lacey's "Ford" published in 1986 - at 778 pages!
I can only wish FoMoCo the very best of luck in restructuring and hopefully NOT following the example of our local equivalent in Birmingham, England the Austin Motor Company, Longbridge!
91.110.150.12 ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)}
Why include the term "only". It sounds like they should, necessarily, have more. That's not the case. Why not simply say "Ford and Volvo are both global brands, while Lincoln and Mercury are sold primarily in the North American market. Ford also owns a 1/3 interest in Mazda, and the two companies share a number of platforms.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Tata gains marque coveted by China
Christine Tierney / The Detroit News
Tata Motors Ltd. comes away from its $2.3 billion deal with Ford Motor Co. with an array of European nameplates. In addition to Jaguar and Land Rover, the Indian automaker has acquired the rights to the Rover name coveted by Chinese manufacturers, the old Lanchester brand, and it shares the name Daimler with German automaker Daimler AG. Tata executives have not disclosed plans for all the brands.
So far, they have stressed that they will respect the identities of Jaguar and Land Rover, two of Britain's stateliest marques, and keep the carmakers separate from Tata's more down-market vehicle operations.
Auto experts say Tata is likely to explore uses for the other brands. Jaguar has considered setting up a separate Daimler line of cars above the Jaguar range, and that idea still has merit, said Wesley Brown, a partner at Iceology, a Los Angeles-based marketing consultancy.
Luxury car sales are expected to outpace the overall market because the number of affluent people is growing, he said. "A Daimler brand above Jaguar would have tremendous potential."
Ford acquired the Daimler name when it bought Jaguar in 1989 but sold Daimler AG rights to the name last year after the German automaker split from Chrysler. Both the brand, pronounced DAME-ler in Britain, and the German company trace their origins to motor car inventor Gottlieb Daimler. In 1893, a British businessman bought the British rights to Daimler's engine -- and Jaguar acquired the marque in 1960.
Because of longstanding ties between India and Britain, Tata probably has a good grasp of the brands' identities and potential, Brown said. "As an Indian company, they've probably got the second-best knowledge of Britain and its people after the British."
As Tata seeks to grow beyond its home market, it may seek to market cars under a Rover badge.
Ford acquired the Land Rover brand and later the Rover brand from BMW, which owned the British carmaker from 1994 to 2000.
In 2005, after Rover collapsed, China's Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. and Nanjing Automobile Group bought some assets but not the brand name.
When Ford negotiated the sale of Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata, its executives felt that Rover belonged with Land Rover, said Ford spokesman Tom Hoyt. "It made sense for those nameplates to be sold with those brands," he said.
MP 91.110.150.12 ( talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of comments, the irony is that Shanghei bought the so-called "intellectual property rights" to the Rover car range, wanted to buy the name "Rover" but Ford refused to sell it to them; TATA Motors effectively get the "Rover" marque for free along with the Land-Rover business! 91.108.6.32 ( talk) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wal-Mart is the largest family owned business, according to: http://www.familybusinessmagazine.com/topglobal.html Any objections to my doing the honors? Davert ( talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
On the ford music video in american idol today (5/14/08) it had a edge shaped crossover but it had the flat 3 bar grill not the metal 3bar grill? Did I just see bad or was this a new cocept I dont know about. S. T. H. 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
the links to Jaguar get you to the animal, and not to Jaguar Cars as it should. Clerambj ( talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
where can i get immediate mechanical answer for my 2001 ford f-150 xlt coil is misfiring . dont know where coils are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.245.101 ( talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Ford actually the fourth largest automobile manufacturer and not the third largest, as claimed in the article? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers#World_Motor_Vehicle_Production_by_Manufacturer )
80.144.230.149 ( talk) 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks for helping me out!
80.144.214.198 ( talk) 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently there is a section:
This now appears to have been a mere publicity stunt since they did NOT raise their light truck fleet by that amount, and in fact fought mandated gas mileage increases that would have been far less. May this be removed? Davert ( talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
will a 1992 4.6 ltr motor work in a 1997 f-150 4x4 truck? if so what will need to be changed over to make it work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.175.216 ( talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not a discussion forum for Ford engines. Please go to one of the hundreds of car forums for your answer. 206.252.74.48 ( talk) 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What is exactly is the logo now of the company? For Ford cars itself it's the blue oval AFAIK, but for the mother corporation is it the script [1]? Can we use these images here [2] of the logos? Gryffindor 20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Criticism section says Henry Ford was the only American to be awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle; however, the article about said award mentions Thomas Watson of IBM and Charles Lindbergh also as award winners. The Ford Motor Company article cites a source that mentions nothing about Ford being the only American recipient, while the award article cites nothing. I'm deleting the mention of "only American" and will demand citations on the other article. I'm not sure if I'm following the right procedure here, so admins, if I've goofed, please drop me a line on my talk page! Raghuvansh ( talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Editors: I propose that it is not encyclopaedic for this sentence to bein the opening Company History section:
"In 2005, Ford Motor Company was among 53 entities that contributed the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush.[6][7][8]"
Perhaps move that to the controversy section? Perhaps remove it entirely... it's not really important? (Many large firms made such contributions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.11.107 ( talk) 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Alan Mulally is the CEO. -- 78.53.154.230 ( talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be posible to get a reference for the comment regarding Australian build Falcons having simmilar fauls to the pinto fuel tanks? -- Andrew Robbins ( talk) 02:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please check against your data source "for Employees 87,700 (2008)", it's stated 246,000 in Ford 2007 annual report. 220.202.7.246 ( talk) 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC) hyjwonder@gmail.com
Amplifying the comments of 3 weeks ago by Arobbins100, I also request that a citation be supplied for the paragraph that states that plastic fuel tanks supplied for use in Australian Ford Falcons (date not stated) were faulty, causing a potential explosion upon rear-end collision.
Certainly I clearly remember that back in 1979 Ford went to great lengths to show the public the tank was safe (filling it with anti-freeze, chilling it to a very low temperature, then dropping it several metres to the floor), as the public had previously been told they were not permitted to store fuel in plastic motor oil bottles.
And car company exposes were all the rage. I think it was (Australian) 60 Minutes that ran a segment about Australian Chrysler Charger owners propping up broken driver seat backs with the spare wheel. To date there has been no widespread adverse publicity concerning the Falcon plastic fuel tank.
If no citation is forthcoming in the next few weeks, I will remove the paragraph. Without evidence this claim is potentially slanderous, putting Wikipedia at risk. Johnr_roberts 11:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
I think American sales total should be included in the article. I don't see why they are not now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Figures
1999: 4,163,369 2000: 4,202,820 2001: 3,971,364 2002: 3,623,709 2003: 3,483,719 2004: 3,331,676 2005: 3,153,875 2006: 2,901,090 2007: 2,507,366 2008: 1,988,376 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would be good to add up to date finance information:
Ford said its net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $5.9bn (£4.1bn). For the whole year, the loss amounted to a record $14.6bn. In the fourth quarter of 2008, Ford's revenue fell to $29.2bn, down from $45.5b —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojabuck ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
We need an electric vehicle section, with all-electric cars and hybrid electric vehicles, and include more information about the Electric Ford Focus, in partneship with Magna International. -- Nopetro ( talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
List of Ford´s electric vehicles:
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. |
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kitwilliams (
talk •
contribs)
16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add some information on the new Transit Connect light duty van coming this summer? Nospamtodd ( talk) 02:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC) i will mail you info. on my last truck.08 F150 at 38mpg.the F100 i had befor that got 52 my last test on 2000 camry for 110,000 mi.41.3mpg my Email bruce.911@live.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.11.90 ( talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Any content and information should probably come from a third party source such as automotive journalism and not just one person. 69.251.135.219 ( talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't checked the archives to see if this has been debated, but since Ford redirects here, why is this title unnecessarily precise at Ford Motor Company, and in violation of WP:NC naming policy (specifically, not in compliance with easily most recognized name or use the most common name)? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
"Plastibell Circumcision Device.jpg" certainly does not belong on this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.69.244 ( talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No Toyota technology was used in the production, design, or manufacturing of the Ford Escape Hybrid.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2005/11/is_ford_innovat_1.html
Stating that licensing Toyota's is a step toward making their system an industry standard is uninformed and incorrect.
See cite [28] in the main page for reference to what I'm stating here.
Your marketing exec must not have been familiar with the intellectual property reality. From USA today ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/05/01/aa.how.get.100.mpg/): "Here are the facts: [Gil Portalatin, Chief Engineer of the Fusion Hybrid] explains, "When we started developing our hybrid system, it was the normal course of business to do a patent search. We realized that some of our ideas might infringe on Toyota's hybrid patents. We contacted them. It just so happened that Toyota was developing some diesel engine technology that might infringe on existing patents owned by Ford. The companies decided to allow the patent infringement as kind of a trade." But there's more, and Gil continues, "While our hybrid technologies are broadly similar, they were not developed together. There are no interchangeable parts between Ford and Toyota vehicles, as our hybrid drive units are engineered differently and use completely unique software to manage the whole system." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darepp ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact is Toyota and Ford entered a patent sharing accord where Toyota received direct injection patents and Ford received hybrid patents, the fact that this fact has been omitted in the hybrid section over a number of years is bizarre to say the least. I'll add this to the article unless anyone has reason otherwise. Dr. zedy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
I have reverted the decidedly non NPOV remarks about Ford licensing hybrid electric technology from Toyota. This has been a controversial issue since March 2004, when it was first announced by Ford and Toyota, because it is rather confusing. As described in the references, and to clarify, Ford and Toyota each spent years developing their respective hybrid electric technologies, starting in the 1990s. Toyota's came out first. The basic hybrid electric system for each company includes an gasoline-powered engine and a high voltage battery-powered electric motor, which work together to power the wheels through a hybrid powertrain system and transmission; and the electric motor which helps drive the wheels also acts as a generator to recharge the battery as needed from the engine, and when coasting or braking. That is the basis for a gas hybrid electric system. While Ford still worked on developing their system, Toyota had already patented virtually the entire hybrid electric engine concept; so any company using a similar hybrid electric system must first purchase a patent license from Toyota, before selling any vehicles. This is what Ford did in order to sell the Ford Escape Hybrid, and this is what other manufacturers have done and will do. Ford uses no Toyota-designed or developed parts, although they are generically similar, in the sense that generic automatic transmissions and power steering systems are basically similar on automobiles. Ford and Toyota do use some common suppliers for hybrid electric parts, but this is due to the lack of significant competition in the supply base for hybrid components, such as the high powered batteries and charging systems. Hope this clarifies the issue, and explains my reversion. -- T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 15:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was a general consensus that there should not be a move.-- Flash176 ( talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Ford Motor Company → Ford — Current name is not in compliance with Use most easily recognized name or use the most common name. This topic is primary topic for Ford, which already redirects here — Born2cycle ( talk) 00:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Name an article as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope; avoid over-precision
Ford crossing gets very few views c. 100 compared to Ford Motor Company c. 3,000. Therefore, it is clear what most readers come here to see. 05:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In the nomination I wrote "This topic is primary topic for Ford, which already redirects here." User:OSX noted that "'Ford' even redirects here" as the reason for his support vote. Then User:Flash176 inquired, "what does Ford's redirecting to here have to do with it?"
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states:
When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other topics), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.
Thus, the Ford redirect to this article establishes that this is the primary topic for Ford. That is what Ford's redirecting to here has to do with it. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Flash176 mentions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), which states:
Please note, "company", "international" "group" "industries" or similar suffixes are not legal statuses and should be included as specified by the originating business, for example it is the JPMorgan Chase & Co., but the The Coca-Cola Company.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) is a naming guideline which in this case unfortunately violates naming policy. Use most easily recognized name and use the most common name are sections of WP:NC, which is naming policy. Policy trumps a policy-violating paragraph in a mere guideline. The guideline also contradicts WP:PRECISION by calling for unnecessary precision. Furthermore, it is not a guideline that is even followed much by convention. See IBM for an obvious example.
Thanks to Flash176 for bringing this to my attention... it should be fixed. Policy-violating contradictions in naming guidelines create an endless source of ambiguity, confusion and dispute. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that a number of the Oppose votes are noting that there "are plenty of other uses and meaning for 'Ford'". True enough, but the relevant issue is whether this use is primary or not, and that, I assumed, was already established to be the case by the fact that Ford redirects here. If that's not accepted, perhaps we should be talking about moving Ford (disambiguation) to Ford? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
No, not exactly, the current title is misleading. This article is about the company most commonly referred to as Ford (even in this article) and it is about the Ford brand (there is no separate article for the Ford brand as there is for Lincoln and Mercury). The two topics are commonly blurred in real life, and this is reflected in this article. As some of the Oppose comments indicate above, the current title is misleading about what the topic of this article is (many obviously think it's only about the company), and so this is another reason to change the title to Ford.
Even if we decide that the company/brand does not have primary use of Ford, then the title of this article should probably still be changed to something like Ford (automobile) or Ford (company/brand). -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ford has it's ptoblems but it still remains a good company. Gateway T1631 ( talk) 20:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So who's the Wiki genius who edited Ford's revenue to be -$147 BILLION DOLLARS? Another example of why Wiki is such a shitty resource these days. 207.172.166.181 ( talk) 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a wikiprojet ford. it is Here. Hereford —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 2 January 2009.
I would like to add a new section to the main article called "Ford Patent Infringements". How do i do it?
Please, STOP edit warring over whether Ford is the fourth or fifth largest automaker in the world. As far as what's factually correct, it should be discussed here as to what information should be used, if it should be annual, biannual, quarterly, whatever. -- Sable232 ( talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, User:Facts707 and I were involved in a discussion about the use of the term "Government Motors" to describe GM after its restructuring. I said that it was inappropriate and other editors agreed with me, with Facts707 insisting its usage still. I used the example that we wouldn't use Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton or Ford "Found On Road Dead" to describe them. After that discussion, he/she has added a section called "In Popular Culture" and included the term Found On Road Dead, which violates the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and NPOV. "Government Motors" and "Found On Road Dead" are not encyclopedic and need to be kept out these articles.-- A Second Man in Motion ( talk) 08:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In the section Global Markets, the following statement is made: Ford is in partnership talks to license hybrid technology from the Toyota Motor Corporation in a deal that could help establish Toyota's system as a standard for the industry.[41]
This is a false statement based on a misconception about Ford's hybrid technology, the continued perpetuation of which frustrates me to no end. Even in the Wikipedia article itself, in the section Hybrid electric vehicles this statement is refuted. It would be better, however, to both remove the inaccurate statement under Global Markets and amend the statement under Hybrid electric vehicles to more accurately nuance the reality of Ford and Toyota's relationship regarding hybrid technology.
According to numerous articles (cited below), Ford decided explicitly to develop their hybrid technology completely in-house so as to develop the necessary technical expertise to be competitive in what they saw as an important field. In the process of development, however, they realized they would be treading on some of Toyota's hybrid patents. It turns out that about that same time, Toyota was developing diesel technology that would potentially tread on some of Ford's patents. A deal was negotiated which would allow both companies freedom to use the specified patents without the threat of lawsuits. Unfortunately, this hit the news as "Ford licenses Toyota hybrid technology" without any clarification, and in fact with plenty of implication that Ford bought and installed Toyota's Synergy Drive in its own vehicles. Ford did not "buy" Toyota's technology, but developed their own completely independently.
Here is a direct quote from Ford hybrid engineer, Gil Portalatin: When we started developing our hybrid system, it was the normal course of business to do a patent search. We realized that some of our ideas might infringe on Toyota's hybrid patents. We contacted them. [...] It just so happened that Toyota was developing diesel engine technology that might infringe on existing patents owned by Ford. The companies decided to allow the patent infringement as kind of a trade. [...] While our hybrid technologies are broadly similar, they were not developed together. There are no interchangeable parts between Ford and Toyota vehicles. Our hybrid drive units are engineered differently and use completely unique software to manage the whole system."
For reference, see:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/
http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news031103_ford/index.html
http://www.hybrid-vehicles.net/ford-escape-hybrid.htm
http://detnews.com/article/20090402/OPINION01/904020316/1149/auto01/Ford+can+compete++veteran+engineer+shows
Yes i know it's a drop in the ocean compared to the cars etc. but were the Ford aircraft not responsible for the introduction of reliable airline services and worthy of mention ? Let alone the vast number of aircraft built by Ford at Willow Run and other plants????? Do all car people have their heads in the sand??????????? Petebutt ( talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} i worked for ford and i have some thing i wish to add and 2 or three i wish to change
Tartbart ( talk) 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Update Volvo goes to Geely Automobile ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.86.147 ( talk) 02:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we get stats about 2009 sales and such? I only see 2008. 69.214.1.148 ( talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone help to find citation for the first two para. under Section "Increased fuel efficiency"? I think it was inserted around Aug. 20, 2008, quite sometime ago and still without proper citation. North wiki ( talk) 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Following website said that Ford Lio Ho in Taiwan has CKD assembled an model called the Ford Vivid. Who knows which model this is? (aka names)-- TheAutoJunkie ( talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mercury dates back to 1939 model year (October 1938 launch), not 1912 as entered in marques table
- Volvo was sold to Geely which was the preferred bidder since 2009 - minimal mention of deal in article, and implication is that Shanghai Auto was the bidder since 2008
Article needs some cleanup, but willing editors like myself are locked out 74.198.12.14 ( talk) 06:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Still no action on the above recommendations. Regarding Mercury, please either fix its start date or show the 1912 to 1938 models in the Mercury article - only one I found is this 1914 model and I doubt that it was made by Ford. 74.198.12.14 ( talk) 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
An in-text link to of "Figo" to Ford Figo seems appropriate. It's at the bottom of the Ford Motor Company#Asia Pacific section, Regards - 220.101 talk \Contribs 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Lincoln is widely available in Middle East market especially in GCC countries. 86.96.228.88 ( talk) 09:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Nemo
In the third para.:'Ford is currently the second largest automaker in the U.S. ... In 2007, Ford fell from second to third in US annual vehicle sales ...'. Shouldn't Ford now rank the third largest automaker in the U.S. based on sales volume?--- North wiki ( talk) 01:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why Ford is often mentioned in the wiki articles relating to Rally sport as a british company. Under what nationality did Ford enter in sport activities, such as World Rally Championship or World Sportscar Championship ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 ( talk) 12:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Ford withdrew from the category after the 2004 season, selling both Jaguar Racing (which became Red Bull Racing) and Cosworth (to Gerald Forsythe and Kevin Kalkhoven)."
Should say: Ford withdrew from the category after the 2004 season, selling Jaguar Racing (which became Red Bull Racing) to Dietrich Mateschitz and Cosworth (to Gerald Forsythe and Kevin Kalkhoven). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.176.34 ( talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This section should be deleted since its really just a subtle advertisement for 1E. They made news of this claiming that Ford values Power Management so much that they added it to their Wikipedia page. This is just shameless self promotion, questionably ethical, and probably a good indicator of how they conduct business ... clever, but dodgy.
Eeee123eeee ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
All logo pictures are regulation 250 pixels. Making this one 220 pixels is ridiculous. All other manufacturer pages are also 250 pixels. FeralLynX ( talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Edits by RodTrent are a COI as they are done by the vendor of the product for marketing purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandford012 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I just revised the medium and heavy truck paragraphs to keep the information current. First, I'd like to suggest Ford Trucks or History of Ford Trucks be expanded to its own article. Second, I included a bit about Ford's LCF being the company's first cabover in the US since Freightliner took over the Cargo. I can't find an exact date for this. I only know about it because I used to work in a Ford Truck dealership and we had a heck of a time getting parts for these South American-made trucks. Somebody PLEASE nail down that date for me. Thank you. -- Brendanmccabe ( talk) 01:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Section is no longer accurate. The Sprint Cup Series is represented by the Ford Fusion, Nationwide by the Ford Mustang, and Truck's by F-Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.133.253 ( talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be mention of Ford's aviation history with the "Ford Trimotor" fleet of airplanes from the 1930's.
Wiki article here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motivealloy ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Does Ford Motors considering a 4x4 MT Ford Everest for Philippinea market this 2011? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.177.105.67 (
talk)
08:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ford will be making the first three cylinder, one liter engine as well as investing $135 million USD for a eight speed transmission that will be designed and manufactured "in house." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamazing15 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Actually, in the 2000's alone, there were six companys to put out hybrid designs before Ford. By automotive market does the article mean "the American automotive market"? -- Cynops3 18:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In many cases Ford motor company is considered to be a European manufacturer aswell as a American manufacturer. There are many Ford models that are made for the European market only, e.g Ford Ka, Ford Fiesta. And Henry Ford had come from Ireland (At that time part of the UK), which means the company was also established by a European man.
80.192.246.56 ( talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Falcon-Eagle2007 80.192.246.56 ( talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ford motor company is not a "European manufacturer" nor is it considered one. Henry Ford is not a "European man" He was born on a farm near Detroit Michigan in the United States of America. It wouldn't matter if Henry Ford wasn't American because the company was founded and headquartered in the USA. If Ford motor company was considered a European manufacturer because they design and build certain models exclusevely for the European market then Nissan, Honda/Acura, Volkswagen, Toyota, ect, would all be considered American manufacturers aswell because they all design and build certain models exclusively in/for North America. -- ?sihtdaeruoynac ( talk) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Henry Ford emphatically did NOT provide higher wages. What he did was ADVERTISE higher wages. Darned few people got the "$5/day wage" -- the number of requirements for that, including occasional surprise inspection of the household, was enormous. The advertisement of the high waves brought huge numbers of workers that could be given the normal low wages. Might this not be removed? Davert ( talk) 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Europe
History
"It owns the Jaguar and/or Land Rover car plants in Britain; Ford's former Halewood Assembly Plant was converted for production of the Jaguar X-Type and currently also assembles Land-Rover's Freelander 2. Jaguars are also assembled at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham while the rest of the Land-Rover range is assembled at Solihull, near Birmingham."
Not any more it doesn't!
Brands
Marques
"Overall the Ford Motor Company controls the following operational car marques: Daimler, Ford, Jaguar, Land Rover, Lincoln, Mazda, Mercury, and Volvo; Daimler and Volvo are currently part of the Premier Automotive Group."
Daimler/Jaguar/Land Rover: Not any more it doesn't!!
Can anyone explain the weird references to 'Daimler', especially the second one re. PAG please?
91.108.20.100 ( talk) 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
www.daimlercars.com contains the phrase "Daimler is a division of Jaguar Cars." of course! MP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.190.55 ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
'Daimler' in the U.K. is part of the Jaguar Cars business, just sold to TATA of course; but realistically Daimler is not an "operational car marque" in the same way as Volvo (cars) is! So please delete the weird references to both 'Daimler' and PAG - as neither of them really exist operationally. This discussion really reminds me of Monty Python: Daimler/PAG is a dead parrot!
HISTORY: "Ford's former Halewood Assembly Plant was converted for production of the Jaguar X-Type and currently also assembles Land-Rover's Freelander 2. Jaguars are also assembled at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham while the rest of the Land-Rover range is assembled at Solihull, near Birmingham." This paragraph can be deleted as all three plants belong to TATA Motors!!!
91.110.190.55 ( talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sound unkind to Ford as I can still remember meeting friendly guys from Ford of Europe at the BL showrooms in Piccadilly, London in 1973 but the following phrase in the introduction needs to be re-visited: "Ford now encompasses many global brands, including Lincoln and Mercury of the U.S., and Volvo of Sweden. Ford also owns a one-third controlling interest in Mazda." I would dispute "many" in favour of 'some', to put it mildly? I don't think either Lincoln or Mercury can be counted as anything other than as 'American' brands....
I suggest that only Volvo itself can be counted as Ford's additional [wholly-owned] global brand - do you agree? I know it is Swedish, but is being assembled in more than one country. Can you tell me exactly where Lincolns and Mercurys are being made/sold these days please?
91.110.190.55 ( talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This quote contradicts the Fordism page: " Henry Ford's combination of highly efficient factories and low prices revolutionized manufacturing and came to be known around the world as Fordism by 1914." Fordism there is described in a few ways but two key components are standardization of product and replacement of craftsmen with low-skill labor, neither of which is mentioned in this sentence. Would anyone care to revise that sentence, other than me? Davert ( talk) 14:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason Davert that almost every one of your revisions on the Ford page show Ford in a poor light? I read the Ford article and it seems like it is largely negative as well, largely listing failures rather than successes. Perhaps this is a result of only citing what the media reports, but it seems like the overall quality of the article is pretty lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.101 ( talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I just tried to verify the J.D. Power thing and found that Ford does not have an especially high ranking. Can someone else tell me whether I'm missing something? http://www.jdpower.com/autos/car-ratings/ Davert ( talk) 14:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The statistics shown on the Ford article are both linked directly to their source articles. What's the problem here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.2.1.101 ( talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the opening paragraph to the following; the changes are shown in bold (below);
"Ford Motor Company is an American multinational corporation and the world's third largest automaker based on worldwide vehicle sales. Based in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit, the automaker was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. Ford's overseas business encompasses only one truly global brand Volvo of Sweden other than Ford itself, but it also owns a one-third controlling interest in Mazda of Japan and a smallholding in former subsidary Aston Martin of England. Its former UK subsidaries Jaguar and Land Rover were sold to Tata Motors of India in March 2008, both companies having been through many changes of ownership in the recent past. Lincoln and Mercury are also Ford's leading brands in the USA, but not in the rest of the world. Buying, investing in and selling small European car companies has been a costly exercise for Ford and is unlikely to be repeated as Ford concentrate on their USA businesses."
Without going into too much detail,this reflects only some of the recent actions necessary for Ford to avoid possible 'bankruptcy', which a senior Ford executive has stated "is not an option" for Ford. (No doubt Jaguar/Land-Rover benefited from their years of Ford's owernship.)
As longtime observer and participant in the UK industry, I follow Ford's changes with interest, especially as I do have my own copy of Robert Lacey's "Ford" published in 1986 - at 778 pages!
I can only wish FoMoCo the very best of luck in restructuring and hopefully NOT following the example of our local equivalent in Birmingham, England the Austin Motor Company, Longbridge!
91.110.150.12 ( talk) 19:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)}
Why include the term "only". It sounds like they should, necessarily, have more. That's not the case. Why not simply say "Ford and Volvo are both global brands, while Lincoln and Mercury are sold primarily in the North American market. Ford also owns a 1/3 interest in Mazda, and the two companies share a number of platforms.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Tata gains marque coveted by China
Christine Tierney / The Detroit News
Tata Motors Ltd. comes away from its $2.3 billion deal with Ford Motor Co. with an array of European nameplates. In addition to Jaguar and Land Rover, the Indian automaker has acquired the rights to the Rover name coveted by Chinese manufacturers, the old Lanchester brand, and it shares the name Daimler with German automaker Daimler AG. Tata executives have not disclosed plans for all the brands.
So far, they have stressed that they will respect the identities of Jaguar and Land Rover, two of Britain's stateliest marques, and keep the carmakers separate from Tata's more down-market vehicle operations.
Auto experts say Tata is likely to explore uses for the other brands. Jaguar has considered setting up a separate Daimler line of cars above the Jaguar range, and that idea still has merit, said Wesley Brown, a partner at Iceology, a Los Angeles-based marketing consultancy.
Luxury car sales are expected to outpace the overall market because the number of affluent people is growing, he said. "A Daimler brand above Jaguar would have tremendous potential."
Ford acquired the Daimler name when it bought Jaguar in 1989 but sold Daimler AG rights to the name last year after the German automaker split from Chrysler. Both the brand, pronounced DAME-ler in Britain, and the German company trace their origins to motor car inventor Gottlieb Daimler. In 1893, a British businessman bought the British rights to Daimler's engine -- and Jaguar acquired the marque in 1960.
Because of longstanding ties between India and Britain, Tata probably has a good grasp of the brands' identities and potential, Brown said. "As an Indian company, they've probably got the second-best knowledge of Britain and its people after the British."
As Tata seeks to grow beyond its home market, it may seek to market cars under a Rover badge.
Ford acquired the Land Rover brand and later the Rover brand from BMW, which owned the British carmaker from 1994 to 2000.
In 2005, after Rover collapsed, China's Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. and Nanjing Automobile Group bought some assets but not the brand name.
When Ford negotiated the sale of Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata, its executives felt that Rover belonged with Land Rover, said Ford spokesman Tom Hoyt. "It made sense for those nameplates to be sold with those brands," he said.
MP 91.110.150.12 ( talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of comments, the irony is that Shanghei bought the so-called "intellectual property rights" to the Rover car range, wanted to buy the name "Rover" but Ford refused to sell it to them; TATA Motors effectively get the "Rover" marque for free along with the Land-Rover business! 91.108.6.32 ( talk) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wal-Mart is the largest family owned business, according to: http://www.familybusinessmagazine.com/topglobal.html Any objections to my doing the honors? Davert ( talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
On the ford music video in american idol today (5/14/08) it had a edge shaped crossover but it had the flat 3 bar grill not the metal 3bar grill? Did I just see bad or was this a new cocept I dont know about. S. T. H. 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
the links to Jaguar get you to the animal, and not to Jaguar Cars as it should. Clerambj ( talk) 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
where can i get immediate mechanical answer for my 2001 ford f-150 xlt coil is misfiring . dont know where coils are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.245.101 ( talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Ford actually the fourth largest automobile manufacturer and not the third largest, as claimed in the article? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automobile_manufacturers#World_Motor_Vehicle_Production_by_Manufacturer )
80.144.230.149 ( talk) 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks for helping me out!
80.144.214.198 ( talk) 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently there is a section:
This now appears to have been a mere publicity stunt since they did NOT raise their light truck fleet by that amount, and in fact fought mandated gas mileage increases that would have been far less. May this be removed? Davert ( talk) 18:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
will a 1992 4.6 ltr motor work in a 1997 f-150 4x4 truck? if so what will need to be changed over to make it work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.175.216 ( talk) 01:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not a discussion forum for Ford engines. Please go to one of the hundreds of car forums for your answer. 206.252.74.48 ( talk) 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
What is exactly is the logo now of the company? For Ford cars itself it's the blue oval AFAIK, but for the mother corporation is it the script [1]? Can we use these images here [2] of the logos? Gryffindor 20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The Criticism section says Henry Ford was the only American to be awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle; however, the article about said award mentions Thomas Watson of IBM and Charles Lindbergh also as award winners. The Ford Motor Company article cites a source that mentions nothing about Ford being the only American recipient, while the award article cites nothing. I'm deleting the mention of "only American" and will demand citations on the other article. I'm not sure if I'm following the right procedure here, so admins, if I've goofed, please drop me a line on my talk page! Raghuvansh ( talk) 05:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Editors: I propose that it is not encyclopaedic for this sentence to bein the opening Company History section:
"In 2005, Ford Motor Company was among 53 entities that contributed the maximum of $250,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush.[6][7][8]"
Perhaps move that to the controversy section? Perhaps remove it entirely... it's not really important? (Many large firms made such contributions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.11.107 ( talk) 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Alan Mulally is the CEO. -- 78.53.154.230 ( talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be posible to get a reference for the comment regarding Australian build Falcons having simmilar fauls to the pinto fuel tanks? -- Andrew Robbins ( talk) 02:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please check against your data source "for Employees 87,700 (2008)", it's stated 246,000 in Ford 2007 annual report. 220.202.7.246 ( talk) 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC) hyjwonder@gmail.com
Amplifying the comments of 3 weeks ago by Arobbins100, I also request that a citation be supplied for the paragraph that states that plastic fuel tanks supplied for use in Australian Ford Falcons (date not stated) were faulty, causing a potential explosion upon rear-end collision.
Certainly I clearly remember that back in 1979 Ford went to great lengths to show the public the tank was safe (filling it with anti-freeze, chilling it to a very low temperature, then dropping it several metres to the floor), as the public had previously been told they were not permitted to store fuel in plastic motor oil bottles.
And car company exposes were all the rage. I think it was (Australian) 60 Minutes that ran a segment about Australian Chrysler Charger owners propping up broken driver seat backs with the spare wheel. To date there has been no widespread adverse publicity concerning the Falcon plastic fuel tank.
If no citation is forthcoming in the next few weeks, I will remove the paragraph. Without evidence this claim is potentially slanderous, putting Wikipedia at risk. Johnr_roberts 11:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
I think American sales total should be included in the article. I don't see why they are not now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Figures
1999: 4,163,369 2000: 4,202,820 2001: 3,971,364 2002: 3,623,709 2003: 3,483,719 2004: 3,331,676 2005: 3,153,875 2006: 2,901,090 2007: 2,507,366 2008: 1,988,376 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. zedy ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Would be good to add up to date finance information:
Ford said its net loss for the fourth quarter of 2008 was $5.9bn (£4.1bn). For the whole year, the loss amounted to a record $14.6bn. In the fourth quarter of 2008, Ford's revenue fell to $29.2bn, down from $45.5b —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rojabuck ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
We need an electric vehicle section, with all-electric cars and hybrid electric vehicles, and include more information about the Electric Ford Focus, in partneship with Magna International. -- Nopetro ( talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
List of Ford´s electric vehicles:
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. |
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kitwilliams (
talk •
contribs)
16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add some information on the new Transit Connect light duty van coming this summer? Nospamtodd ( talk) 02:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC) i will mail you info. on my last truck.08 F150 at 38mpg.the F100 i had befor that got 52 my last test on 2000 camry for 110,000 mi.41.3mpg my Email bruce.911@live.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.240.11.90 ( talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Any content and information should probably come from a third party source such as automotive journalism and not just one person. 69.251.135.219 ( talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't checked the archives to see if this has been debated, but since Ford redirects here, why is this title unnecessarily precise at Ford Motor Company, and in violation of WP:NC naming policy (specifically, not in compliance with easily most recognized name or use the most common name)? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
"Plastibell Circumcision Device.jpg" certainly does not belong on this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.69.244 ( talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No Toyota technology was used in the production, design, or manufacturing of the Ford Escape Hybrid.
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2005/11/is_ford_innovat_1.html
Stating that licensing Toyota's is a step toward making their system an industry standard is uninformed and incorrect.
See cite [28] in the main page for reference to what I'm stating here.
Your marketing exec must not have been familiar with the intellectual property reality. From USA today ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/05/01/aa.how.get.100.mpg/): "Here are the facts: [Gil Portalatin, Chief Engineer of the Fusion Hybrid] explains, "When we started developing our hybrid system, it was the normal course of business to do a patent search. We realized that some of our ideas might infringe on Toyota's hybrid patents. We contacted them. It just so happened that Toyota was developing some diesel engine technology that might infringe on existing patents owned by Ford. The companies decided to allow the patent infringement as kind of a trade." But there's more, and Gil continues, "While our hybrid technologies are broadly similar, they were not developed together. There are no interchangeable parts between Ford and Toyota vehicles, as our hybrid drive units are engineered differently and use completely unique software to manage the whole system." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darepp ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact is Toyota and Ford entered a patent sharing accord where Toyota received direct injection patents and Ford received hybrid patents, the fact that this fact has been omitted in the hybrid section over a number of years is bizarre to say the least. I'll add this to the article unless anyone has reason otherwise. Dr. zedy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
I have reverted the decidedly non NPOV remarks about Ford licensing hybrid electric technology from Toyota. This has been a controversial issue since March 2004, when it was first announced by Ford and Toyota, because it is rather confusing. As described in the references, and to clarify, Ford and Toyota each spent years developing their respective hybrid electric technologies, starting in the 1990s. Toyota's came out first. The basic hybrid electric system for each company includes an gasoline-powered engine and a high voltage battery-powered electric motor, which work together to power the wheels through a hybrid powertrain system and transmission; and the electric motor which helps drive the wheels also acts as a generator to recharge the battery as needed from the engine, and when coasting or braking. That is the basis for a gas hybrid electric system. While Ford still worked on developing their system, Toyota had already patented virtually the entire hybrid electric engine concept; so any company using a similar hybrid electric system must first purchase a patent license from Toyota, before selling any vehicles. This is what Ford did in order to sell the Ford Escape Hybrid, and this is what other manufacturers have done and will do. Ford uses no Toyota-designed or developed parts, although they are generically similar, in the sense that generic automatic transmissions and power steering systems are basically similar on automobiles. Ford and Toyota do use some common suppliers for hybrid electric parts, but this is due to the lack of significant competition in the supply base for hybrid components, such as the high powered batteries and charging systems. Hope this clarifies the issue, and explains my reversion. -- T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 15:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was a general consensus that there should not be a move.-- Flash176 ( talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Ford Motor Company → Ford — Current name is not in compliance with Use most easily recognized name or use the most common name. This topic is primary topic for Ford, which already redirects here — Born2cycle ( talk) 00:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Name an article as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope; avoid over-precision
Ford crossing gets very few views c. 100 compared to Ford Motor Company c. 3,000. Therefore, it is clear what most readers come here to see. 05:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In the nomination I wrote "This topic is primary topic for Ford, which already redirects here." User:OSX noted that "'Ford' even redirects here" as the reason for his support vote. Then User:Flash176 inquired, "what does Ford's redirecting to here have to do with it?"
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states:
When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other topics), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article.
Thus, the Ford redirect to this article establishes that this is the primary topic for Ford. That is what Ford's redirecting to here has to do with it. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Flash176 mentions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), which states:
Please note, "company", "international" "group" "industries" or similar suffixes are not legal statuses and should be included as specified by the originating business, for example it is the JPMorgan Chase & Co., but the The Coca-Cola Company.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) is a naming guideline which in this case unfortunately violates naming policy. Use most easily recognized name and use the most common name are sections of WP:NC, which is naming policy. Policy trumps a policy-violating paragraph in a mere guideline. The guideline also contradicts WP:PRECISION by calling for unnecessary precision. Furthermore, it is not a guideline that is even followed much by convention. See IBM for an obvious example.
Thanks to Flash176 for bringing this to my attention... it should be fixed. Policy-violating contradictions in naming guidelines create an endless source of ambiguity, confusion and dispute. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I note that a number of the Oppose votes are noting that there "are plenty of other uses and meaning for 'Ford'". True enough, but the relevant issue is whether this use is primary or not, and that, I assumed, was already established to be the case by the fact that Ford redirects here. If that's not accepted, perhaps we should be talking about moving Ford (disambiguation) to Ford? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
No, not exactly, the current title is misleading. This article is about the company most commonly referred to as Ford (even in this article) and it is about the Ford brand (there is no separate article for the Ford brand as there is for Lincoln and Mercury). The two topics are commonly blurred in real life, and this is reflected in this article. As some of the Oppose comments indicate above, the current title is misleading about what the topic of this article is (many obviously think it's only about the company), and so this is another reason to change the title to Ford.
Even if we decide that the company/brand does not have primary use of Ford, then the title of this article should probably still be changed to something like Ford (automobile) or Ford (company/brand). -- Born2cycle ( talk) 05:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ford has it's ptoblems but it still remains a good company. Gateway T1631 ( talk) 20:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
So who's the Wiki genius who edited Ford's revenue to be -$147 BILLION DOLLARS? Another example of why Wiki is such a shitty resource these days. 207.172.166.181 ( talk) 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a wikiprojet ford. it is Here. Hereford —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 2 January 2009.
I would like to add a new section to the main article called "Ford Patent Infringements". How do i do it?
Please, STOP edit warring over whether Ford is the fourth or fifth largest automaker in the world. As far as what's factually correct, it should be discussed here as to what information should be used, if it should be annual, biannual, quarterly, whatever. -- Sable232 ( talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, User:Facts707 and I were involved in a discussion about the use of the term "Government Motors" to describe GM after its restructuring. I said that it was inappropriate and other editors agreed with me, with Facts707 insisting its usage still. I used the example that we wouldn't use Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton or Ford "Found On Road Dead" to describe them. After that discussion, he/she has added a section called "In Popular Culture" and included the term Found On Road Dead, which violates the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and NPOV. "Government Motors" and "Found On Road Dead" are not encyclopedic and need to be kept out these articles.-- A Second Man in Motion ( talk) 08:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
In the section Global Markets, the following statement is made: Ford is in partnership talks to license hybrid technology from the Toyota Motor Corporation in a deal that could help establish Toyota's system as a standard for the industry.[41]
This is a false statement based on a misconception about Ford's hybrid technology, the continued perpetuation of which frustrates me to no end. Even in the Wikipedia article itself, in the section Hybrid electric vehicles this statement is refuted. It would be better, however, to both remove the inaccurate statement under Global Markets and amend the statement under Hybrid electric vehicles to more accurately nuance the reality of Ford and Toyota's relationship regarding hybrid technology.
According to numerous articles (cited below), Ford decided explicitly to develop their hybrid technology completely in-house so as to develop the necessary technical expertise to be competitive in what they saw as an important field. In the process of development, however, they realized they would be treading on some of Toyota's hybrid patents. It turns out that about that same time, Toyota was developing diesel technology that would potentially tread on some of Ford's patents. A deal was negotiated which would allow both companies freedom to use the specified patents without the threat of lawsuits. Unfortunately, this hit the news as "Ford licenses Toyota hybrid technology" without any clarification, and in fact with plenty of implication that Ford bought and installed Toyota's Synergy Drive in its own vehicles. Ford did not "buy" Toyota's technology, but developed their own completely independently.
Here is a direct quote from Ford hybrid engineer, Gil Portalatin: When we started developing our hybrid system, it was the normal course of business to do a patent search. We realized that some of our ideas might infringe on Toyota's hybrid patents. We contacted them. [...] It just so happened that Toyota was developing diesel engine technology that might infringe on existing patents owned by Ford. The companies decided to allow the patent infringement as kind of a trade. [...] While our hybrid technologies are broadly similar, they were not developed together. There are no interchangeable parts between Ford and Toyota vehicles. Our hybrid drive units are engineered differently and use completely unique software to manage the whole system."
For reference, see:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/05/editorial-attention-i-wall-street-journal-i-ford-does-b-n/
http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news031103_ford/index.html
http://www.hybrid-vehicles.net/ford-escape-hybrid.htm
http://detnews.com/article/20090402/OPINION01/904020316/1149/auto01/Ford+can+compete++veteran+engineer+shows
Yes i know it's a drop in the ocean compared to the cars etc. but were the Ford aircraft not responsible for the introduction of reliable airline services and worthy of mention ? Let alone the vast number of aircraft built by Ford at Willow Run and other plants????? Do all car people have their heads in the sand??????????? Petebutt ( talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} i worked for ford and i have some thing i wish to add and 2 or three i wish to change
Tartbart ( talk) 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Update Volvo goes to Geely Automobile ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.86.147 ( talk) 02:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we get stats about 2009 sales and such? I only see 2008. 69.214.1.148 ( talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone help to find citation for the first two para. under Section "Increased fuel efficiency"? I think it was inserted around Aug. 20, 2008, quite sometime ago and still without proper citation. North wiki ( talk) 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Following website said that Ford Lio Ho in Taiwan has CKD assembled an model called the Ford Vivid. Who knows which model this is? (aka names)-- TheAutoJunkie ( talk) 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mercury dates back to 1939 model year (October 1938 launch), not 1912 as entered in marques table
- Volvo was sold to Geely which was the preferred bidder since 2009 - minimal mention of deal in article, and implication is that Shanghai Auto was the bidder since 2008
Article needs some cleanup, but willing editors like myself are locked out 74.198.12.14 ( talk) 06:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Still no action on the above recommendations. Regarding Mercury, please either fix its start date or show the 1912 to 1938 models in the Mercury article - only one I found is this 1914 model and I doubt that it was made by Ford. 74.198.12.14 ( talk) 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
An in-text link to of "Figo" to Ford Figo seems appropriate. It's at the bottom of the Ford Motor Company#Asia Pacific section, Regards - 220.101 talk \Contribs 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Lincoln is widely available in Middle East market especially in GCC countries. 86.96.228.88 ( talk) 09:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Nemo
In the third para.:'Ford is currently the second largest automaker in the U.S. ... In 2007, Ford fell from second to third in US annual vehicle sales ...'. Shouldn't Ford now rank the third largest automaker in the U.S. based on sales volume?--- North wiki ( talk) 01:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why Ford is often mentioned in the wiki articles relating to Rally sport as a british company. Under what nationality did Ford enter in sport activities, such as World Rally Championship or World Sportscar Championship ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.191.190 ( talk) 12:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Ford withdrew from the category after the 2004 season, selling both Jaguar Racing (which became Red Bull Racing) and Cosworth (to Gerald Forsythe and Kevin Kalkhoven)."
Should say: Ford withdrew from the category after the 2004 season, selling Jaguar Racing (which became Red Bull Racing) to Dietrich Mateschitz and Cosworth (to Gerald Forsythe and Kevin Kalkhoven). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.176.34 ( talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This section should be deleted since its really just a subtle advertisement for 1E. They made news of this claiming that Ford values Power Management so much that they added it to their Wikipedia page. This is just shameless self promotion, questionably ethical, and probably a good indicator of how they conduct business ... clever, but dodgy.
Eeee123eeee ( talk) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
All logo pictures are regulation 250 pixels. Making this one 220 pixels is ridiculous. All other manufacturer pages are also 250 pixels. FeralLynX ( talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Edits by RodTrent are a COI as they are done by the vendor of the product for marketing purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandford012 ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I just revised the medium and heavy truck paragraphs to keep the information current. First, I'd like to suggest Ford Trucks or History of Ford Trucks be expanded to its own article. Second, I included a bit about Ford's LCF being the company's first cabover in the US since Freightliner took over the Cargo. I can't find an exact date for this. I only know about it because I used to work in a Ford Truck dealership and we had a heck of a time getting parts for these South American-made trucks. Somebody PLEASE nail down that date for me. Thank you. -- Brendanmccabe ( talk) 01:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Section is no longer accurate. The Sprint Cup Series is represented by the Ford Fusion, Nationwide by the Ford Mustang, and Truck's by F-Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.133.253 ( talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be mention of Ford's aviation history with the "Ford Trimotor" fleet of airplanes from the 1930's.
Wiki article here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Trimotor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motivealloy ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Does Ford Motors considering a 4x4 MT Ford Everest for Philippinea market this 2011? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.177.105.67 (
talk)
08:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Ford will be making the first three cylinder, one liter engine as well as investing $135 million USD for a eight speed transmission that will be designed and manufactured "in house." [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandamazing15 ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)