Limiting consumer choice is almost always bad though. If it were me, my only requirement of employees driving a non-Ford vehicle would be to fill out an annual survey telling me what they like about their non-Ford vehicle so that the marketing and design folks learn from it. Employees can be a valuable source of market information, use them, don't abuse them. Forcing your employees to embrace your product doesn't make the product better.

GM also runs a finance company. Should all GM employees be required to use them for auto financing? GE runs a mortgage company, same thing apply there? The issue with me is that where do you draw the line. And the trouble starts as soon as you pick a location....

 

That's not the point. If you have to park downtown or drive on a toll road, that's out of the businesses hands. If the business owns the land and makes a parking lot, it should be expected that (with the exeption of certain executive, handicapt spots etc), the lot is first come first serve.

 

Maybe it's all about the visibility of non-Ford cars in the Ford parking lot?
Unless you tell them, no-one knows who you finance your car or house through.

 

I tend to agree. Discrimination is not going to endear employees to the company.

But another perspective is that you don't have to work at any particular company if you are terribly offended by the parking policy or any other company policy. It may take a while, and there may be costs associated with moving to another company (including perhaps to another home), eventually if a person doesn't like where he/she works, they can seek alternative employment. The downside for the offending company, of course, is it may lose otherwise really good employees. Employers ought to consider the views of those employees along with the views of those who would support discriminatory policies.

 

kinda funny if those non-Ford cars were purchased used at a Ford dealer.

 

I too tend to agree. I suppose if you work for Pepsi, its pretty bad form to have a Coke in the lunch room, but grapefruit juice? If you work at Burger King, rolling into work with an Egg McMuffin might be considered grounds for termination, but a corned beef sandwich from the deli down the street? So sure, I can see it being a frowned upon for a worker at the F150 plant to show up in new GMC, but a Kia?

Regardless, heres my advice to Ford. Fix the damn product line, offer value for the $, cut your list prices to reasonable levels instead of pricing an F150 at 40K and then seeing if there are any suckers out there that will actually pay anything close to list for it and don't worry so damn much about how to maximize your bottom line, but rather how you can build the best vehicles anywhere. Quit thinking you understand the US market and start understanding why Toyota, Honda, BMW etc are kicking your keister. You own Jag, build an F-type. You own Rover, revive the Defender. Put a decent IRS in the Mustang for God's sake. Stop building the mundane, no one wants it. You won't fix your image problem overnight, but you can come back, hell Audi did. You just closed all those plants, so don't forget to identify and fire the management responsible, its their shortsightness thats killing the company. Stop talking about building world class vehicles and actually build them. Then you'll sell cars and truck like theres no tomorrow because demand is still going up. And then you won't need to legislate that your employees drive the product they build, they'll be proud to do it all on their own.

 

Hey hey..I like the solid rear axle in my 2006 Mustang GT just fine thank you very much

..plus I've read that combining high rear wheel drive horsepower with irs can cause issues with wheel hop, and I've also been told that the panhard rod such as used on the Mustang was developed for NASCAR. Now if you want to criticize the Focus or the Fusion or whatever else, I won't say a word, but go easy on my beloved 'stang!!

 

Does Bugatti know this?!? Hmmm... so which is it, the GT40 has less HP than the Mustang or a solid rear axle? I'm happy you're happy with the Mustang, but the lack of IRS from where I sit is a cost containment issue, not a performance improvement.

 

I would just love to count all of the Land Rover brand vehicles in the parking lot...because the average factory worker drives their Range Rover Sport to work. I'm not trying to generalize, but geeze. How generous of them to allow those vehicles.

 

This is reminiscent of the action last year by Coors; one of their employees was observed at a local bar (off premises) drinking a Bud or something, but not a Coors. The supervisor fired him and it's gone to trial (don't think it's been resolved).

It also brings back memories of the late 70's when Detroit was really sucking wind, when Chrysler had to beg for a government bailout. Stories of Japanese cars getting keyed in the parking lot -- the one across the street.

To me, it's symbolic of Ford execs hiding their head in the sand -- one of the perks of being an exec there is getting the cars for free personal use, like a Lincoln Town Car. Well, maybe they should force Ford execs to drive a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry or Lexus or MINI or.....to see just what it is that people are buying and why.

Am I anti-American car? No, I'm just pro a "solid handling, good power, great reliability, great warranty, roomy and comfortable interior, low maintenance costs, no exploding gas tanks, good mileage, great value for the money" car buyer.

When Detroit builds such a car, I'd be happy to buy it. I'd consider the Euro spec Ford Focus, one of the better selling cars over there, in the same spec over here. The last time Ford tried to do that with the Merkur Xr4ti (a well regarded Opel I believe), they "Americanized" the car and it tanked.

My last Hertz rental of a Ford didn't convert me and GM is way behind Ford in other recent rentals.

 

as i recall, ford is trying to downsize it's workforce.

this could be one way to encourage this goal.

as an aside, at one time i was eligible for the ford employee discount.
given their offerings at the time, it just wasn't worth it.

 

Dude, enjoy your Bugatti and your GT40! (if you can actually obtain either ) I got to sit in a GT40 once but they wouldn't let me take it home

As for me, for about the same price as a JCW kit I can get a Roush supercharger put on the Mustang, keep my warranty, and get 415+ hp and 370+ ft-lbs of torque..
but those numbers might still be below the Shelby GT500 which might see 475-500 hp. That's good gallup for the buck -!

IMO trying to find fault with the Mustang's rear suspension is a waste of good criticism that could certainly be used elswhere on the Ford lot. It's a muscle car, of the kind most prized by collectors if you ever watch Barrett-Jackson, and for all their crap Ford at least had the foresight to bring it back to it's roots while GM and D/C scramble to catch up.

Plus, it just plain drives sweet!!

But elswhere on the lot...
Now I almost liked the Thunderbird, but it drove like a 1972 LTD. There was no performance edge at all, it was just a big, lumbering barge for 2. Very sad. The Focus is Freaky looking, and the Fusion is just another generic euro wanna-be. Bloated mini-vans and ginormous SUV Lag-Wagons... I don't want any of them!!

 

Did the latest version of the GTO (2004) cause the latest Mustangs to catch up (2005)?

Do you really think any current "muscle car" is going to end up at Barrett-Jackson? Highly doubtful including the projected sales of 10,000 2007 Shelby Mustangs .... WAY to many numbers ... WAY to many cars made.

 

Did you mean the Australian Holden? I thought that was just a rental car! Guess I missed it.

Actually, the rights to the first production 2007 Shelby GT500 sold on Barrett-Jackson for $600,000.00. Looks as if there is still some interest there to me.. and didn't the very first Mustang sell about 700,000 the first year alone? Don't mess with Texas or the Mustang bebe!!

time for a vanity pic :