F-Series trucks # 1 for 40 years

Terryallan wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
Unless GM's sales numbers are combined with Chevy's when comparing it doesn't mean much to me.

Ford still wins.
Ford for 2016....820,799

Chevy for 2016...574,876

GMC..............221,680

total........... 796,556...........for a minus of 24,243

Me I don't care. I'm old, and unless this truck goes up in smoke or worse. I have bought my last one., and in truth they all do a good job at what they are supposed to do.

BTW. I did not post the Ram because that wasn't ask. but it was between the Chevy, and GMC

Unless you are just considering full size you are forgetting the almost 150,000 Colorado and canyon.

N-Trouble wrote:
And in other news McDonalds sells the most burgers...

That's the way I see it.

Who cares? If a person really care, why? :R

To each their own. Purchase what you prefer. :@

By-the-way, I do own a Ford F150. ;)

Terryallan wrote:

proxim2020 wrote:

Thomas/NH wrote:
Ford has been good for me... Back during the recession when the big three were looking for a bailout, I was impressed by Ford's position and decided to back them. I bought 5000 shares at $1.59 (against my broker's better judgment, "you're throwing your money away") now it's $13.17 (now back to investment grade and paying dividends again). I know I should be shrewd and divest, but with the new models coming out and the investment in electrics I'm going to let it ride.

I've alway owned Fords both personally and in my company, they've served me well.

You do know Ford ended up taking money from the government right? Originally they approached the government like all others asking for $9 Billion, but changed their mind when they got a slick idea. They instead borrowed almost $6 Billion from the Energy Department instead of going through TARP (The Bailout Program). They could then say that they didn't have to take bailout money. Ford Credit received almost $16 billion from the government. Ford's financial arm borrowed more than any other competitor. The fact is everybody got bailed out in one way or another.

A lot of difference between a LOAN, and a Bailout. they also took out the loan long before the bailout. I have a loan for my house. Trust me. It is NOT a bailout.

From Investopedia:

"What is a 'Bailout'

A bailout is a situation in which a business, an individual or a government offers money to a failing business to prevent the consequences that arise from the business's downfall. Bailouts can take the form of loans, bonds, stocks or cash. They may require reimbursement. Bailouts have traditionally occurred in industries or businesses that are perceived as no longer being viable or are sustaining huge losses."

It wasn't free money that the government was handing out. They wanted it back and still do. These were always meant to be loans. GM was paying something like 7 percent on their loan which they paid back in full.

Fordlover wrote:

proxim2020 wrote:

Thomas/NH wrote:
Ford has been good for me... Back during the recession when the big three were looking for a bailout, I was impressed by Ford's position and decided to back them. I bought 5000 shares at $1.59 (against my broker's better judgment, "you're throwing your money away") now it's $13.17 (now back to investment grade and paying dividends again). I know I should be shrewd and divest, but with the new models coming out and the investment in electrics I'm going to let it ride.

I've alway owned Fords both personally and in my company, they've served me well.

You do know Ford ended up taking money from the government right? Originally they approached the government like all others asking for $9 Billion, but changed their mind when they got a slick idea. They instead borrowed almost $6 Billion from the Energy Department instead of going through TARP (The Bailout Program). They could then say that they didn't have to take bailout money. Ford Credit received almost $16 billion from the government. Ford's financial arm borrowed more than any other competitor. The fact is everybody got bailed out in one way or another.

You can split this any way you want, but the reality is a loan and a bailout aren't the same, even if they have similar effects.
Loan-noun. 1. A thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest. (this is Ford's case)
Bailout-noun. 1. An act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse. (GM/Chrysler)

I love when people try to make a bailout/bankruptcy that screwed over the bondholders of old GM equivalent to the government loan Ford took (loan, paid back with interest, meaning the Government is poised to make money), and bond holders aren't screwed over. It just makes that person look small and agenda driven.

There's a huge difference between giving and gifting. The money that given out was in the form of a loan. GM was paying 7 percent on the money that they borrowed.

BB_TX wrote:

proxim2020 wrote:
............ Ford Credit received almost $16 billion from the government. Ford's financial arm borrowed more than any other competitor. The fact is everybody got bailed out in one way or another.

The government put $49.5 billion into GM, and got $39 billion back. A $10.5 billion loss.

GM bailout

GM and Chrysler went thru government structured bankruptcies.

Ford borrowed $5.9 billion from the energy department and used it to upgrade its manufacturing plants and vehicles, not for a bailout. And they asked for a $9 billion credit line in case of further downturn. And why not use it if the money was available. Good business sense.

Ford loan details

Ford was for the GM/Chrysler bailout as a failure of one or both of GM/Chrysler would have negatively affected Ford's business.

I'm not sure what the quoted text has to do with the rest of the post, but the part in the quote was about Ford Credit. That's Ford's financing arm. GMAC took $13.9 Billion.

Lessmore wrote:

ACZL wrote:
Am surprised that no-one posted anything about this yesterday that it was reported that Fords F-series have been the #1 selling truck for 40 years. Not being a smart alec just cuz I own a Ford, just saying what I read.

I see.

In Canada Ford used to sell both Ford and Mercury pickup tricks, till the 1968 model year. After that model year, Ford of Canada dropped the Mercury line and sold only Ford pickups at both Ford and Mercury lines.

Our family business had a '68 Mercury M250...300 inline six, 3 on the tree. Good work truck.

Chevrolet used to out sell Ford and Mercury, till Ford dropped the Mercury truck line...then Ford became # 1 in pickup truck sales in Canada

But if over the years, add up Chevy and GMC pickup truck numbers sold in Canada and the USA, a lot of times the 'General' sells the most pickup trucks.

As a result of all this history...I regard Ford pickup sales numbers in both the USA/Canada, in the same vein as a clever accountant works financial numbers.

Total pickup truck sales champion, a lot of times goes to GM, when you count all GMC and Chevrolet pickup truck numbers. But if you count just one badge...ie; Ford...then Ford wins the title.

So Less why don't you add them up for us?

Cummins12V98 wrote:

mich800 wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Chuck_thehammer wrote:
Fleet - Lease units do make the spreadsheets look good.

Yes, I own a past Fleet-Lease F 250 unit.

Ohio oil industry all Fords. Texas oil and electric all Fords.
F 150 to F 750... my opinion...

fyi this is my First Ford Truck. I was a car guy and not Ford.

In the real world where people actually own their trucks and use them hauling RV's and other transport trailers RAM Trucks dominate the field.

And fleet managers are tools? Not concerned with the total life costs of their vehicles to keep their jobs. It is often tossed out here on this forum about fleet sales like they are completely ignorant of these facts.

Are you saying what I said is not true? I did not dispute one bit the fleet sales numbers. But since it is brought up RAM is making BIG inroads with Ambulances, Wreckers and Security trucks.

No not directly at you. Just when people diminish fleet sales as not "real" working vehicles somehow. Fleet vehicles are purchased for the exact same reasons as your individual purchase example. Cost of acquisition, costs to operate, and costs of disposition.

And I have no comment on your stats as I have never actually read that data so will assume you are correct for this discussion.

ACZL wrote:
Am surprised that no-one posted anything about this yesterday that it was reported that Fords F-series have been the #1 selling truck for 40 years. Not being a smart alec just cuz I own a Ford, just saying what I read.

Not a smart alec but just another pot stirrin' thread :R

Big Mac sells more burgers blah blah.... .

We need another forum for troll threads.....and SC as the mod.

mich800 wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Chuck_thehammer wrote:
Fleet - Lease units do make the spreadsheets look good.

Yes, I own a past Fleet-Lease F 250 unit.

Ohio oil industry all Fords. Texas oil and electric all Fords.
F 150 to F 750... my opinion...

fyi this is my First Ford Truck. I was a car guy and not Ford.

In the real world where people actually own their trucks and use them hauling RV's and other transport trailers RAM Trucks dominate the field.

And fleet managers are tools? Not concerned with the total life costs of their vehicles to keep their jobs. It is often tossed out here on this forum about fleet sales like they are completely ignorant of these facts.

Are you saying what I said is not true? I did not dispute one bit the fleet sales numbers. But since it is brought up RAM is making BIG inroads with Ambulances, Wreckers and Security trucks.

Personally...only care about this kind of topic for the numbers and long model
run so that parts (dealer, after market, parts houses and junk yards) will be
plentiful and cost reduced via numbers...

Now if traded in every 2-3-5 or so years...then maybe being with the herd might
have a position on my 'have to have' list of stuff...

As for bailout or any kind of assistance...they are mostly all run
by bean counter...(AKA bottom line) folks and too often run them
into the ground

Bottom line is important, but not as important or equally as important
as managing their 'product'...and if their product is good...the
bottom line comes along

motortrend-Angus MacKenzie wrote:


http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0611_the_big_picture/index.html

Bunkie Knudsen, David Halberstam writes, believed in a simple concept: The people in Detroit had to make good cars, and if they did, the people in New York would take care of the stock. If only it were still true...