Talk:Ford Motor Company/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4



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)

It wouldn't matter since Honda and Toyota were in the US market first with hybrid designs. Perhaps they meant crossovers in which case the Mazda-engineered Ford Escape with Toyota-type hybrid system would be the first hybrid crossover, for what it's worth. Personally I don't feel it's a distinction worth making. Davert (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)ford means FIX OR REPAIR DAILY ha ah

European & American

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. (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Falcon-Eagle200780.192.246.56 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There are also many GM models made for the European market. Also, the Ka and Fiesta were, if I am not mistaken, both designed in Asia. The nation of origin of Henry Ford is not particularly relevant since all his cars were engineered while he was in the US. Is Nissan now European because it is effectively run by a Frenchman? Or is it Japanese because it was founded in Japan? Davert (talk) 15:06, 24 March 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)

Historical inaccuracy

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)

Since there was no objection I took out "highly paid workers." I'll add what I should have said earlier, which was that the main point of removing the need for craftsman was to be able to pay people less - by being able to fire people at whim, with any number of people waiting outside the gate. Also -- why is no mention made of the early subcontracting of large portions of the cars? The Dodge Brothers did this before going off on their own; but they are only mentioned as early investors. Davert (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)




"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!



"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? (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Ford has the right to the Daimler name as a car marque. They've been nice to Mercedes in not using it, though they could have adapted, say, a Jaguar to become a Daimler. I don't recall how they got it, but they got it. As for Jaguar and Land Rover, yes, they are now part of Tata - as of today.Davert (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
A quick read of Wikipedia reveals that the Daimler marque that Ford owns is the British Daimler marque, it came into their ownership with the Jaguar Cars company in the 1980s. It is not related to the German Daimler company. Jaguar had acquired the British Daimler Motor Company in 1960, and used the Daimler marque on many different vehicles, including the Daimler Super Eight of 2005. Historically, the British Daimler company was founded in the 1890s, by a British engineer, to build cars using British-built Gottlieb Daimler-designed engines. Gottlieb Daimler, who pioneered the internal combustion engine, independently co-founded the German Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft company, which has evolved through Daimler-Benz and DaimlerChrysler to become today's Daimler AG. There are still two Daimler's, the British marque, which Ford owns, and the German automotive group. -- de Facto (talk). 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect the British Daimler name was sold to Tata with Jaguar. A quick look at the Trademark Office shows identical trademarks in automobiles from both British and German outlets. Jaguar's is shown as live as is Daimler, AG's. This isn't a particularly important thing anyway since (a) NOBODY makes cars under the Daimler brand, and unless someone does the trademarks will presumably expire, and (b) Ford sold Jaguar and Daimler was registered by Jaguar. Perhaps it should go into Tata's listing but for Ford, Daimler is now irrelevant. Davert (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)kkj,knhj nbcdt5t76
Jaguar still use the Daimler marque. You can buy a Daimler Super Eight today, see their Daimler website: -- de Facto (talk). 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right. I did just see a note in an article on the purchase of dfsdfhrrfhata that stupid was indeed included with the sale of Jaguar. Davert (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC) contains the phrase "Daimler is a division of Jaguar Cars." of course! MP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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!!! (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? (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Fordism again

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 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I checked the IP above: = according to WHOIS. --SSBohio 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

J.D. Power

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? 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 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph update

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! (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 (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! (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Error in largest family owned business?

Wal-Mart is the largest family owned business, according to: Any objections to my doing the honors? Davert (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean in this country or worlwide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ford music video?

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)

link to Jaguar

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)

mechanical help

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 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not here that's for sure - we don't generally publish how-to guides or provide help links to off-topic discussion sites, per WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTGUIDE. Did you try a Google or Yahoo search for some F-150 forums on the topic? eg: this. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

4th largest manufacturer / Error in introduction

Isn't Ford actually the fourth largest automobile manufacturer and not the third largest, as claimed in the article? ( ) (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way. Please feel free to fix it if you can. The "claim" in the article is whatever it was as of the last revision, when it was changed from #2 to #3, which may have been a year ago or more. Since it is linked to the (internal) source, it was most likely correct at that time. There may be additional outdated information in the article, such as its position on Fortune 500 and other ranking lists, as US and global automotive and other heavy industries are fairly rapidly changing. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. I just noticed the article is "locked" from anonymous editing, so I made some updates. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for helping me out! (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove publicity stunt?

Currently there is a section:

In 2000, under the leadership of the current Ford chairman, William Clay (Bill) Ford, the Company stunned the industry (and pleased environmentalists) with an announcement[1] of a planned 25 percent improvement in the average mileage of its light truck fleet — including its popular SUVs — to be completed by the 2005 calendar year.

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)

Careful. Calling it a mere "publicity stunt" may be decidedly non-neutral - see WP:NPOV, and probably non-factual and unverifiable - see WP:V. Now, it could be argued that everything an Automaker (or any productive company) says about its products in advertisements and press releases is for publicity and may be considered "stunts" by some, but we must remain encyclopedic here. Fact is, if anything, Bill Ford came into the President/Chairman/CEO position with all sorts of ambitions and plans and environmentalistic hopes and dreams for the Family Company, and was promptly or eventually shut down by the "inertia" of how things worked in the upper management at Ford's. His successor, Alan Mulally, is perhaps finally breaking through some of the cultural management walls, using firings and reassignments when necessary, to get things done that Bill simply could not (being by nature perhaps "too nice" for the job). Which is why Bill brought Mulally onboard in the first place. In any case, the material is decidedly outdated, and perhaps could be deleted as irrelevant; or perhaps it should be preserved with the note that Bill's goal failed due to the real world competitive market environment, and consumer demand for more power and capacity, and less concern for fuel economy. Recall that the other, smaller "fuel efficient" pickups suffered dramatic sales drops during the same time frame, due to much less consumer demand for that sort of truck. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I was not meaning to suggest we call it a publicity stunt outside of the discussion page. Deleting the material as irrelevant would be fine. I refuse to believe that Ford could do nothing to fulfill its promise -- or that they really intended to, since, again, they FOUGHT minor increases in the standards even as Bill Ford made that promise. I see no reason why he should be assumed to be more honest than you or I under similar conditions, and I don't think we should be pitching him as valiantly trying to change an organization (that he controlled) that resisted the change. Ford did not move to bring its European cars over here until Mulally showed up, and his efforts started before gas prices rocketed. Davert (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - I guess we will remain stuck at an impasse where we "refuse to believe" things for which we do not have first hand knowledge - only hearsay, speculation, public misconceptions, and random ignorant chatter in some of the media. In any case, Ford (the company) only "fought" higher fuel efficiency regulations before gasoline prices skyrocketed, knowing (or perhaps assuming) that the inevitable consequences would be expensive spending in powertrain and materials technologies, with little to no chance of return on the investment, and consumer non-acceptance of resulting low performing, small lightweight vehicles, with limited flexibility and capability, poor crash safety and little chance for cost recovery (nevermind earning a profit), and also significant losses in market share due to non-availability of the high profit trucks and other vehicles that were, at the time, easily selling. It might seem now that if Ford HAD gone ahead with the aggressive fuel savings, that they would now be picking up in small car sales and market share (if they had been able to survive 5 years of not selling profitable trucks). Perhaps Ford's strategy was short-sighted, but it kept them (barely) in business through those times. Vehicle programs that Ford canceled during that time could not produce a profitable business case, using the then marketplace assumptions - they were unaffordable to build and sell. Of course, Monday Morning Quarterbacking is easy for all of us; once one knows the outcome of what was tried, it is easy to point fingers at the bad plays that did not work out in the end. In any case, it could be said that Ford is finally (maybe) on track with a strategy that might work - bringing in the small car and other vehicle designs from Europe to America. But remember - this is a very new idea, it was only worked out and announced a few months ago, around April and May 2008. Another thing to note - the "great design" cars that Ford produces now (and soon) in Europe only came into being in the last few years. Ford of Europe was desperately unprofitable and losing market share through most of the 90's and well into the 00's. Desperate market and financial conditions (and LOTS of spending and effort there, fueled incidently by American truck profits!) finally yielded some fine, high quality, well respected automobiles that are selling reasonably well there. Meanwhile, Mulally has been with Ford's for 2 years now (hired Sept 2006) - so apparently it could be argued that it took him over a year and a half (and perhaps $4.50 gasoline) to smash the "status quo" to the ground and bring the rest of the Company around to commit to the Euro-cars strategy. In any case, please by all means feel free to edit away any shortcomings in the article - we want neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic information, not just one man's viewpoint of how it was that things came to be how they are. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
On the one hand, you ask me to believe Bill Ford seriously was committed to a 25% gas-mileage increase, serious enough to have it listed in Wikipedia. On the other hand, you justify Ford's decision to not pursue the increase at all based on the various arguments the auto industry has always made. The end point is that the promise was NOT seriously pursued as far as anyone can tell and I believe it should be deleted from the page. I see no reason why Ford should get credit for something it did not do. Davert (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you are saying that, even though Ford (man and company) indeed made a commitment to improve fleet fuel economy by 25% (and this is a reference-sourced statement), it should not be mentioned in Wikipedia because they were unable (or unwilling) to achieve that goal in the promised time frame, and therefore they should not "get credit" (whatever that means) for it here, in the Wikipedia. This would be akin to outright deleting any reference to George Bush the First's famous campaign tag line "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!", on the basis that he was unable (or unwilling) to follow through on that campaign promise. Makes no sense to me. The correct thing to do (assuming it is notable and informative to the masses) is to quote Mr. Ford (and the company's press releases), and then in a neutral way, point out that the commitment was not met. I think the article does this, more or less, but feel free to clarify the point if you desire. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can figure out a way to really do this in a neutral way, I'd be happy with that. I do not believe the article clearly stated, in essence, that no attempt was ever made to fulfill the promise. Providing the reasons why the promise may not have been a "good idea" at the time is one thing, but I don't see a NPOV way of suggesting that perhaps the promise was meant as a successful way to get onto the front pages... I think there is also a difference in the historical impact of the two statements. No New Taxes was a mantra and arguably the phrase on which the election turned. "25% better gas mileage" was a good marketing line but I don't think the historical significance will be recognizable ten years from now. Either way, as the article was written, it sounded as though they had made a sincere pledge. Davert (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

will it work

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 (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. (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)

It has indeed been confusing for about the last decade. The so-called Blue Oval is (at least currently) the official logo of the Ford Motor Company ("mother corporation"). However, for a relatively "short time" around the turn of the (current) century, the Blue Oval was set aside for use as only the Ford vehicle brand logo (as an analog to the Mercury, Jaguar, and Lincoln brand logos). All the Ford brands and subsidiaries at the time (foreign and domestic) were then placed under the "mother" Ford Motor Company corporate script halo logo. For a while, all significant Ford properties (and independent dealerships) went through an admittedly expensive "cleansing" process of removing the Ford Blue Ovals, and replacing them with script Ford Motor Company signs, from the top of Ford World Headquarters, right down to individual business cards and stationery. Well after a few years this change was suddenly reversed, and the widely recognized Blue Oval was returned to become the corporate-wide standard logo. Meanwhile the Ford Motor Company corporate script logo has been all but retired, although there are still plenty of them to be seen on building signs, window stickers, and envelopes and things lying around. Hope this clarifies the issue. There are probably some decent references out there that can verify this odd little speed bump in Ford's identity and history, if you want to pursue it further. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Only American to get Nazi award?

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)

You are doing fine. The burden of proof is absolutely on those that add such material; and if the cited references do not adequately verify the claims, then they can (and should) be immediately removed, or at least have the reference itself removed and replaced with a {{fact}} [citation needed] notice. At the very least this will get the attention of more experienced editors to look into the issue. If an edit-wheel war or content-argument ensues (which is always possible), then the issue can be brought back here for an RfC discussion, and consensus will determine if the material is properly notable and defended with the cited source(s). Hopefully it will not need to go to that, nor the next steps in dispute resolution. In any case, be BOLD, and do what is right for the wiki-project. If you make a mistake, it is easily corrected. if you need some assistance from an admin, see WP:ADMINS. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed

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 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to me to be broaching across the line of being non-notable and non-topical. It is pretty obviously a back-handed non-neutral POV-pushing argument by individuals strongly opposed to the Bush presidency and policies, wishing to tar-and-feather individuals and corporations who associated with and "supported" the Bush campaign and presidency in 2004. Perhaps such info belongs in the Bush article under "supporters". That said, it will be interesting to see if the same individuals who went around posting such tripe will also post corresponding info about those companies that end up contributing to the Obama inauguration. On second thought, they would probably consider this to be bragging points - at least in the short term until the Obama administration also finds itself deeply mired in controversy and utter failure to deliver on promises, after the "honeymoon" period. But then, the "other side" would then be sure and point out who the "evil" Obama supporters were, so on it goes. But, come to think of it, Ford may actually be one of the Obama inaugural supporters, since there is some perception that an Obama administration might be more open to "bailouts" for the Automakers than the Bush administration. In any case it seems fairly plausible that an "edit wheel war" could break out if it is removed outright now without consensus discussion, especially now with the extraordinary public sensitivity on the American automotive companies, so we need to be careful not to rattle too many "troll cages" unnecessarily. That said, feel free to be bold about it if you wish. The article is currently semi-protected from anonymous IP users, but you can easily register as a "real" username and start editing freely, and start building respect among your editor peers for the quality of your work. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Alan Mulally is the CEO. -- (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Green tickY Done - thanks (and woops). --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Pinto / Link with Australian Falcon

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)

Certainly. To insert an inline citation needed request in the article, simply tag the questionable statement with {{fact}} at the spot where the desired footnote reference should be placed. This will alert various editors and bots of the need to find and cite a reliable source reference, or else delete the unverifiable information if necessary. See Template:Fact for more info. Thanks! --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of Employees wrong

Please check against your data source "for Employees 87,700 (2008)", it's stated 246,000 in Ford 2007 annual report. (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Green tickY Thanks - this is or was a confusion of the US-based employee counts for the lower figure, versus worldwide employees for the larger number. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 04:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pinto / Link with Australian Falcon II

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).

American Sales

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 (talkcontribs) 04:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 05:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
added data Dr. zedy (talk)


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 (talkcontribs) 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Electric vehicles

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:

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitwilliams (talkcontribs) 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 

Transit Connect

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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. (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Title - move to Ford?

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)

There is an out of place picture under "small cars"

"Plastibell Circumcision Device.jpg" certainly does not belong on this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid Part 2

No Toyota technology was used in the production, design, or manufacturing of the Ford Escape Hybrid.

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.

This is simply not true, I once heard a Ford marketing exec say quite awkwardly that the technology was borrowed from Toyota. And I was sitting in the room with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your marketing exec must not have been familiar with the intellectual property reality. From USA today ( "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 (talkcontribs) 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).

Hybrids part 3

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)

Not to contradict you, but since automakers routinely patent work in progress, and the Ford system appears to have changed rather substantially from concept to production, ... Ford did indeed use Toyota technologies as far as outsiders can tell, and we should probably keep some mention of it. There is no shame in licensing a better system, and every automaker licenses others' patents (or waits for them to expire) where needed. Davert (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. On what basis do you claim that "the Ford system appears to have changed rather substantially from concept to production" and "Ford did indeed use Toyota technologies"? Was it insinuated in Flash of Genius? Why do you think Ford somehow needed to end up "licensing a better system"? As stated, Ford and Toyota essentially developed their own Hybrid technologies, more or less simultaneously, and quite independently on literally opposite sides of the globe. The fact that there are some simularities should be no surprise - the Hybrid Electric concept has been around for quite some time (eg: Diesel-Electric locomotives); it simply took this long for battery and transmission technologies to make it practical and affordable (barely) for automobiles. In any case, Toyota won the "race" as it were for Hybrid Electric automobiles, and patented the entire concept (which essentially includes a big battery, a motor/generator, a gasoline engine, and a hybrid transmission that combines and distributes the engine/battery power as needed), as applied to all road vehicles; and all automotive companies must pay tribute for production licenses to Toyota's generic patents. If Ford had gotten there first, it would have been the other way around. In any case, it is probably true that there is a public misconception that Ford buys Toyota technology for the Hybrid Escape/Mariner and upcoming HEV Fusion/Milan, due to faulty reporting in the media, which Ford (and also Toyota) has dutifully attempted to refute at every turn. This is probably worthy of mention, if we can keep it neutral, and verifiable, never mind factual. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
there was no reason to remove that information which is 100% factual, see Ford Escape Hybrid. Dr. zedy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 CompanyFord — 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)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.
  • Strong oppose a ford is a place in a river that is fordable. (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
That's true but irrelevant in Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ford is already redirecting to FoMoCo, which is the official name. I see no good reason to change it. Also, you left out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), in which the next-to-last paragraph states ""company", "international", "group", "industries" or similar suffixes...should be included as specified by the originating business". As I said, Ford Motor Company is the official name, therefore the page should remain where it is now.--Flash176 (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to be argumentative, but what does Ford's redirecting to here have to do with it?--Flash176 (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well it isn't being used is it? Also you don't say I have a Ford Motor Company Taurus, or a Toyota Motor Company Camry. The Toyota article is "Toyota", despite numerous other uses including a major Japanese city. OSX (talkcontributions) 05:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Toyota is a good comparison because that article, like this one, is about the brand as well as about the company. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There are many companies and people named "Ford", but only one "Ford Motor Company". This request is quite silly, frankly. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The current article name is the actual name of the company, and there are plenty of other uses and meaning for "Ford".--Mariordo (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - "Most common name?" "Ford" alone often refers to the Ford brand, while someone wanting to explicitly refer to the company itself would shorten it to FoMoCo. In fact, FoMoCo itself used to do that.
As quoted from WP:NC: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. "Ford Motor Company" is not difficult to recognize and there is no question of ambiguity. Articles on any FoMoCo product state "manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. There is no reason to rename the page. --Sable232 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ford Motor Company is the most recognized and common name of Ford Motor Company. The most recognized and common name of the Ford brand of cars is Ford. The Ford Motor Company > Ford. Silly is right.--Dbratland (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no separate article for the topic of the Ford automobile brand (as opposed to the Mercury and Lincoln brands which do have their own articles). This article is it. The Ford brand, as well as the company most commonly referred to as "Ford" even in this article, are both covered in this article. But I can understand why someone might get misled about this by the current article title, which is actually another reason to change it to Ford. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Reality > WP's model of reality.--Dbratland (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The reality is that the topic of this real article is not (just) the company - it's the brand too. Sorry you were misled. You're not the only one. The current title is very misleading. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Did I say I thought the article didn't discuss the Ford car brand? Whether it should continue to do so is up to future editors to decide, if I'm not mistaken. Is there a WP policy saying there must be a separate article on Ford or else the parent article must be named Ford? If not, I'd go with Common Sense. --Dbratland (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't merely discuss the Ford car brand, the Ford car brand is as much the topic of this article as is the company, and as much as the Mercury brand is the topic of Mercury. Your initial comment implied you did not realize that, since your stated reason for opposing was that the current title was appropriate for the company, and the proposed title, Ford, for the brand. If you realized both were topics of this article, why make the distinction?
Common Sense is to refer most often to the company as well as to the brand as Ford. Common sense folks as well as reliable sources are more likely to refer to, for example, "the layoffs at Ford" rather than "the layoffs at the Ford Motor Company".
Results 1 - 10 of about 34,500 for "layoffs at Ford". [1]
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,300 for "layoffs at Ford Motor Company" [2]
Results 1 - 8 of 8 for "layoffs at the Ford Motor Company" [3]
No results found for "layoffs at FoMoCo". [4]
--Born2cycle (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to create an argument based on some kind of search engine experiment you did, can you explain the method behind it? There are lots of different search engines and you can make them say all sorts of things. It seems to me introducting that is only going to create more things to disagree about.
Is there a WP policy saying there must be a separate article on Ford or else the parent article must be named Ford?--Dbratland (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I thought WP:GOOGLETEST results were easily recognizable. I just added links for each search above for your convenience. Please note that this data is not a cornerstone of my argument by any stretch. I only presented it to refute the common sense argument. For some reason I'm getting very different numbers today, but the relative difference is the same (referencing just "Ford" in this company-meaning context results in about 10x as many ghits as referencing "the Ford Motor Company" in the same context). If you can produce what you believe to be a fair test with substantially different results, I would like to see it.
Of course there is no policy that says that if there is no separate article for the brand Ford, then the parent article must be named Ford. But, then, that's not my argument anyway. I just noted that the topic of this article is a combination of the brand as well as the company, and the current title incorrectly implies it's only about the company. WP:PRECISION does say this:

Name an article as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope; avoid over-precision

It appears to me that the current title does not indicate accurately its topical scope, and that it would so more accurately if the title were just Ford. However, many people seem emotionally tied to have this article named the way it is, so it's almost certainly going to stay this way. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:GOOGLETEST provides any number of reasons why your results are endlessly debatable. Do you want to have an endless debate over the validity of your search engine test?
If the search engine test is not your argument, and the fact that Ford is covered within Ford Motor Company is not your argument, why post any of that stuff here? If it is not pertinent to the discussion delete it.
Filling the discussion with off-point noise would tend to give the appearance of filibustering and ad nauseam argument. Do you want to appear to be doing that? Why not keep it concise as a service to others who wish to read the discussion and then post their response? --Dbratland (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not off-point, sir, it's just not key to my argument. It's only key to refuting your argument, which as far as I can tell, has been reduced to merely asserting, without substantiation, that we should keep the current title because that's "going with Common Sense". It's a difficult assertion to refute, or substantiate. At least google test substantiates to some extent the refuting of your argument. Flawed as it is, it is better than nothing, which is what you've presented in support of your argument. Does that make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
How about this: We delete this entire useless thread, and I edit my original "Oppose" remark to include the addition "We are free to be guided by our own common sense rather than be chained to an extreme interpretation of some high-level WP policy." You can then post a single, concise reply and everyone will then be free to spend their time reading more useful things. I'll even delete the bit that I concur that the suggestion is silly.--Dbratland (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you feel a need to retract something you said in this thread, please just say so. There should be no need to delete anything. I think the thread is useful in that it has served to reveal a disrespect for the policy in Wikipedia ("chained to an extreme interpretation of some high-level WP policy") that specifies how articles are supposed to be named. I interpret "free to be guided by our own common sense" to mean, "choose whatever we prefer for any or no reason whatsoever". It's useful to have that attitude revealed too. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've read through the article as well as the whole discussion here and still think that the current title is more appropriate than just "Ford." --CFHerbert (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Primary topic of the search term "Ford" as exhibited by the links and page views, and the topic of the article itself is more commonly called "Ford" than "Ford Motor Company". This article also discusses things pertaining to the Ford Motor Company that are unrelated to the company's full name, and using a company's official name as the title is deprecated when the shorter title is available, per WP:NCCORP. Dekimasuよ! 12:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose be precise it is necessary. Reverence of --Tomcha (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • I contest the description that "Ford"'s primary meaning is the car company. Sure it's getting alot of press recently, but ford is an English verb, noun and adjective, and very commonly used in describing the act of fording, describing fordable bodies of water, the existence of fords on bodies of water, etc ad infinitum. (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
You might be right about the primary meaning of "ford", but the issue here is primary Wikipedia topic. I suggest you review WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Primary topic in Wikipedia is defined in terms of Wikipedia topics, "much more used than any other topic [with the same name] covered in Wikipedia" (my emphasis). The meaning to which you refer is not even one of the uses listed at the extensive Ford (disambiguation) page, and it shouldn't be. Like I said above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
you have not reviewed the dab page properly then, because there is an article for it Ford (crossing), and it is on the dab page. (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I see it now, under Places. A ford is not a WP:PLACE, so I assumed if it was on the dab list it would not be there (or under Ford Motor Company, People, or Fictional characters). It belongs under Other meanings and I just moved it there, per WP:BOLD. Sorry about missing that, and thanks.
Anyway, Ford (crossing) is just another use of the name Ford, while the topic of this article is primary, as made apparent by the redirect of Ford to here (rather than to the dab page); see below. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is right to put it under other uses either - it is the primary meaning. Other uses are derivations of it. Pterre (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

What Ford redirecting here has to do with it

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?"


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)

  • It does nothing of the sort, it only assumes that it is primary topic, which isn't necessarily so, since I've seen many cases where the redirects have been retargetted several times over its history. (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Obviously redirects are sometimes wrong, but, in general, a redirect pointing to an article means that the primary topic of the name of that redirect is in that article as much as an article at a given name means that article topic is the primary topic for that name.
At any rate, if the company/brand that is the topic of this article is not the primary topic for Ford, then the redirect should be fixed. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)?

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)

"Policy-violating contradictions in naming guidelines create an endless source of ambiguity, confusion and dispute." Why? Who precisely needs to have that contradiction resolved? What ambiguity and confusion are you talking about? What dispute? Who are the parties to the dispute over this? Can you be more specific about the problem you discovered which prompted this requested move?
I would argue, and many would agree, that what we have here is a controversy that arose artificially, for reasons that are mysterious.--Dbratland (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of other uses of Ford... yes BUT...

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)

Sounds good to me. Pterre (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That is acceptable to me. Either it's a dab page, or it's a place on a river that you can cross at. (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on both Google results and Wikipedia page-view statistics for May 2009, Ford Motor Company is the primary meaning for Ford. Of the 91015 readers to visit "Ford Motor Company" and 58,266 to use the search term "Ford", only 1505 visited the dab page. Prolog (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of these would be internal and search engine (Google) links, and not Wikipedia-based searches. OSX (talkcontributions) 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so per those results moving the dab page to Ford is not a good idea, but moving this page to Ford is a good one. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this article about the Ford Motor Company?

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)

No need for any change of title at all. Ford Motor Company is just dandy. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, would you kindly stop making new level-3 sub-sections every time you come up with a new argument? This is all part of the "Discussion" section, and shouldn't be fractured in that way - it makes it very hard to follow the flow of the discussion. I've changed them all to level-4 divisions. Next time you have a new thought, just outdent, that's sufficient to show a change of trajectory. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle, you have still failed to demonstrate that the title "Ford Motor Company" causes confusion to Wikipedia readers. This article is not about the Ford brand, there is in fact little information that refers explicitly to it. It may appear that way because in most of the world Ford Motor Company is only Ford, nothing else. Mercury vehicles are only sold in selected North American countries and the Middle East, Lincolns are sold in those areas plus China and Korea. Volvo is still operated mostly independent of Ford, and Volvos are generally (at least not in North America) considered Fords in the sense that Lincolns and Mercuries are. --Sable232 (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Sable, I don't think it causes confusion, but the name is unnecessarily long. As I stated above, " don't say I have a Ford Motor Company Taurus, or a Toyota Motor Corporation Camry. The Toyota article is "Toyota", despite numerous other uses including a major Japanese city." OSX (talkcontributions) 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sable, that this title is misleading is not a cornerstone of my argument, so I don't feel a need to demonstrate anything about that. I only mentioned it when I noticed so many comments indicated a lack of realization that this article is about the brand as well as the company. Do you not agree that it's reasonable to attribute the cause of that to the current title? Yet everything that Wikipedia has to say about the Ford brand is in this article, for better or for worse. The fact is that in the real word the company and brand are often blurred, and they are in this article too. That's fine. But the title would more accurately reflect what the topic of the article was if it were just Ford (for the same reason that Toyota and Honda are named the way they are). I made this move proposal because I thought it was an obvious improvement. I'm surprised by how strong and numerous the objections are, but whatever... --Born2cycle (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Same goes for many other pages: Holden (not GM Holden) and Porsche (not Porsche SE), etc. OSX (talkcontributions) 11:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You respects directly, title bar is ″Ford Motor Company″. --Tomcha (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The more appropriate comparison is that the website name is, not (which Ford apparently doesn't even think is even worth registering and linking to --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. (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.

Where did you? --Tomcha (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It was archived here --Sable232 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Why is archived, re-proposed? --Tomcha (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It was archived as routine house-keeping; it had only 4 support votes, and nobody chose to act on it. If you wish to go ahead and start it, feel free - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject.  Chzz  ►  01:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

would like to add a new section to this article. Need your permission

I would like to add a new section to the main article called "Ford Patent Infringements". How do i do it?

Probative sales

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)

I'm for annual report (probative evidence) 2008 Annual Report, is year-end again? --Tomcha (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, going with annual rankings seems to make more sense. --Sable232 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" Nipping this in the bud...

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)

Well, first of all Slick Willie shows Bill Clinton 2nd among a list of 5 others (no, I didn't put it there). The nickname is also under List of United States presidential nicknames#William Jefferson Clinton (no, I didn't put it there either).
Secondly, the reference to "Government Motors" was a passing reference in context farther down the article, i.e. " now majority owned by the United States Treasury, leading to its sometimes pejorative nickname Government Motors". A Google search of "government motors" shows about 1,430,000 hits, the first several pages of which (at least) all relate to General Motors and many of which are from reliable sources (Washington Post, LA Times, Globe and Mail, NPR [[3]], etc). There is even a website [[4]], a Facebook boycott group [[5]], and numerous sites selling branded products (65,800 hits for "government motors t shirt" alone). Although the mere mention of the phrase "Government Motors" was unacceptable to you, after looking closer I think it deserves an entire section. And no, I do not have a political agenda as you accused me of on my discussion page. Nor do I have any past, present, or future affiliations with GM or any of its competitors, detractors, etc. Nor do I wish GM any ill will; pretty much every adult in the United States knows that the government loaned GM a large amount of money and that it went bankrupt, mentioning what is probably one of the most common new phrases in American society in the 21st century is not going to hurt GM or Wikipedia.
Thirdly, your blanking of an entire section in this Ford article because you took exception to one small part of it is highly dubious and appears unwikipedian. Are you suggesting that Ford has had no place in American or world culture? Or that "First on Race Day" dare not be mentioned despite it's decades long history? Even "Found on Road Dead", a longstanding piece of Americana, was presented in a very respectful manner which did not criticize the automaker, as in "a lighthearted reference...".
Finally, you pointed out WP:INDISCRIMINATE but did not describe which, if any, portion of that principle you thought was violated. You may want to consider WP:NOTCENSORED regarding your own continued removal of information.
I kindly request that you reconsider your position on these issues. If not, I would be happy to request arbitration on our behalf. Sincerely, Facts707 (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Ford article is not as heavily monitored as the GM article. The section would not exist had I not mentioned "Found On Road Dead" on the GM talk page, and fact that almost every other editor agreed that "Government Motors" did not belong in the article. After that, you wrongly accused me of violating the 3RR rule and threatened me with arbitration when a RFC would have sufficed, but was unnecessary since others deemed it unnecessary and POV. You are bringing out the strawman again with your accusations of censorship, you can read the rule on encyclopedic and unencyclopedic information. I'll start an RFC if we don't get any replies from neutral observers. Regards.--A Second Man in Motion (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's unencyclopedic and should not be here. --Sable232 (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Misleading Statement on Ford Hybrid Technology

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:

I second this - it's an important point to correctly understanding the company's achievements of the last decade - it was and remains the only fully parallel hybrid developed completely independently of Toyota. Mfedder (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ford aircraft

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)

Edit request

{{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)

 Question: Would you have a WP:COI? There was no edit request btw. --Mikemoral♪♫ 22:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Update Volvo goes to Geely Automobile ...

Update Volvo goes to Geely Automobile ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Shouldn't we get stats about 2009 sales and such? I only see 2008. (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I Second this, financial results for 2009 have been available since 28 Jan 10 and as such the current 2008 financial performance information in the article should have been updated to 2009's months ago. Cgeniola (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have updated global wholesale deliveries (this is how Ford reports) and net profit for 2009. I tried to update the infobox, but being unfamiliar with its workings, I backed off. The numbers are all in the annual report cited with the 2009 numbers. Could someone who knows that infobox please update it? Thank you! (And maybe, remove 2008 numbers from the lead, it gets a bit convoluted.) --BsBsBs (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sect. 6.5 Increased fuel efficiency

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)

Ford Vivid

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)

Errors/Outdated Data

- 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 (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. (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Sable232 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ford Figo

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)

Done! Thank you for pointing it out! CZmarlin (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Ye be welcome matey! Oh, Talk Like a Pirate Day is over! (Arrr! Face-sad.svg) - - 220.101 talk\Contribs 05:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln Markets

Lincoln is widely available in Middle East market especially in GCC countries. (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Nemo

Ranking of U.S. automakers

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)

Nationality of Ford

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 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sale of Jaguar F1

"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 (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PC Power Management

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)

Logo box size

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)

No more ridiculous than your first making it 300 instead. -Sable232 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

PC Power Management

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 (talkcontribs) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ford Trucks

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)

Regarding spinning it off to its own article, that's an interesting idea, and I have some books that I could use as references on such an article. Unfortunately I am far from an expert on the topic and face a scarcity of time available for the task. But I would just like to say that (1) between what info is here already and what I could cite, we'd have a fair overview, and (2) creating such an article is a cool idea, so I encourage anyone to do so although I'm not sure how soon it would happen if it falls to me. At any rate, happy editing. — ¾-10 14:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ford in NASCAR

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 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Link suggestion

There needs to be mention of Ford's aviation history with the "Ford Trimotor" fleet of airplanes from the 1930's.

Wiki article here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motivealloy (talkcontribs) 17:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though I suspect that the Ford Trimotor was built by a separate corporation from Ford Motor Company (would have to check to be sure), it's still appropriate to mention the Ford-branded aircraft business in this article, if only to give a link over to the other article. And the one corp may have been a subsidiary of the other corp, too, with one owning stock in the other. So it's not likely that they were "unrelated". I'm pretty sure that's what the relationship originally was between, for example, GMAC and GM. And one certainly couldn't write a full overview of the history of GM without mentioning GMAC! — ¾-10 02:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ford Everest MT 4x4 for Philipine market this 2011.

Does Ford Motors considering a 4x4 MT Ford Everest for Philippinea market this 2011?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ford Commits to Major SUV Fuel Economy Gains
  2. ^