Pradden - 7.3M shares of F means this guys owns 0.2% of Ford.

I'll let you figure out what kind of influence he will have on the board with less than 1%. If you're not sure, take a moment to find out how much the Ford family owns.

nozferat - apologies. the internet (and ford, and jay leno, and nbc) forgot that only cars nozferat wants to buy should ever be built.

skablaw, why is it autoblog's fault that they used a proper term that you don't know?

Maybe the better question is why does it make you so angry...

Kevin and Sea Urchin - What you say would be true if "bankruptcy" meant "failed." What Mazda is educating you on is that companies that file bankruptcy are not closing their doors. This is the real world, not the game "monopoly."

Maybe it's in that next econ class that Sea Urchin didn't take but filing bankruptcy means that companies enter a legal status and structure that gives them the ability to restructure. That restructuring is meant to enable them to exit bankruptcy as a profitable and sustainable company. Some of the activities that take place include renegotiating terms of debt (or elimination of it entirely), contracts with suppliers, and relationships with labor.

Not all companies manage to exit bankruptcy as going concerns but many do.

This comment perhaps best illustrates why Chrysler is in such dire straits.

Being reliable cars for 100k+ miles is table stakes for any mass market car company today. It's the bare minimum of competence. Meanwhile, other companies have vastly improved design, refinement, and features.

Then there's the refusal to consider something made by a non-big3 manufacturer. Another example of setting a low bar that has encouraged and enabled the big3 to trail the industry. Chrysler has been allowed to build a lot of mediocre product because we don't require their product to be competitive. This is where the "patriotic" american needs to learn the difference between being patriotic and being indulgent. Buying american because it's american is not patriotic. Providing the support and guidance to american companies so that their product is actually better than others....that would be patriotic.

This is fostered and/or caused by a self-limited world view. Chrysler has nothing that will even come close to competing with a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry. Call them names all you want but at the end of the day, it won't change the fact that a Chrysler Sebring is a poor excuse for a car in 2009. It's meaningless if it runs for 170+k miles trouble-free if the Honda will do that while having better refinement, handling, interior, etc.

But the bottom line is that this argument is behind the times. Quality was the issue over a decade ago. The automotive conversation has moved far beyond that. If that's the battle the american companies are still fighting, the war is lost.

Which is what we're seeing with Chrysler today.

This is like saying you're hoping for a ferrari economy car.

Dean - You can try to resist but there's this funny thing called "slang."

In "slang" people refer to wheels as "rims."

This is not like people calling brakes, "breaks" or calling a dual clutch tranny an automatic transmission. They know what they are referring to. These same people might call tires, "meats."

You can argue it but you'd lose. Or are you the same guy who argued in the 80's that wheel covers are not hubcaps?

Actually, the best benchmark would be a series of laps on the 'ring with an average of those times.

Smaller courses magnify volatility in lap times. With fewer corners there are fewer opportunities to make a mistake but there are also fewer opportunities to make up mistakes as well.

The reason the 'ring serves as good benchmark is because it is a good combination of factors. There are plenty of technical sections that favor handling, long sections that favor power, and enough variety in both to provide a complete test of performance capabilities.

Short technical tracks over-emphasize handling over power. Traditional long "power" tracks over-emphasize power. The 'ring combines both and if a series of laps are done, you cover handling, power, and endurance.

What's very true about your statement, though, is that on a course as long as the ring... a few seconds difference is meaningless unless it's an avg of many laps.

Tough to be arrogant if it's really just ignorant.

Those arena quality projectors aren't exactly living room friendly, HD, and use ungodly amounts of power.

You know...if you can fathom it.

dave0mary

"compared to all history".... you sure about that, chief? Be careful. There's a lot at stake.

I love it when the foolish call others fools.