Hey Ford Motor Company, want to make money, build this (Part 1)

[Adam in NYC USA]

Hey Ford Motor Company, want to make money, build this (Part 1)
Hello from Adam in NYC

Hello Ford Motor Company.

Just saw your losses post on the Web. Thats is a lot of money you posted as a loss.

Here is the full story to those who were asleep under a rock.

================================================== ================================================== =======================

The New York Times
January 25, 2007
Ford Loses Record $12.7 Billion in ’06
By NICK BUNKLEY

DEARBORN, Mich., Jan. 25 — The Ford Motor Company had the worst year in its history in 2006, losing $12.7 billion and suffering sharp erosion of its share of the United States auto market.

Ford lost $5.8 billion in the fourth quarter alone, the company reported today. In the same period a year earlier, it lost a comparatively trivial $74 million.

The company took in $160.1 billion in revenue in 2006, 9 percent less than in 2005.

Ford’s full-year loss, equivalent to $6.79 per share, far exceeded the $7.39 billion it lost in 1992, the worst previous year in its 103-year history, and it even surpassed the $10.6 billion loss posted by General Motors in 2005. But it is still short of the $23.5 billion that G.M. lost in its worst year, 1992.

Most of Ford’s red ink in 2006 came from the cost of shrinking and reorganizing the company, buying out workers and writing down asset values. Those charges accounted for $9.9 billion of the full-year loss after taxes. But Ford’s day-to-day business did very poorly as well, with a loss of $2.8 billion on continuing operations, compared with a $1.9 billion loss in 2005.

The figures were an unwelcome surprise to many Wall Street analysts, who on average had forecast a loss of about $2.5 billion for the year, excluding restructuring charges and other costs that Ford considers one-time items.

Still, Ford’s stock price ticked upward in morning trading, gaining about 20 cents a share to trade near $8.40 a share at midday, roughly where it was a year ago. The stock has been rising since mid-December, in part because gasoline prices have eased a bit.

Ford’s woes are greatest in North America, where its automotive operations lost $6.1 billion before taxes, and sales revenue fell by 14 percent to $69.4 billion. The North American losses, four times as bad as the year before, more than wiped out profits from automotive operations overseas.

Jonathan Steinmetz, an automotive analyst at Morgan Stanley, called those results “terrible,” noting that the North American figures represent a loss of $4,700 on every vehicle sold.

“The best we can say for the quarter is that it’s over,” Mr. Steinmetz wrote in a note to clients this morning.

The fourth quarter of 2006 was the first full earnings period for Ford under its new chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, who was hired away from Boeing in September. With Mr. Mulally at the helm, Ford took the unprecedented step of pledging nearly all of its United States assets, from its factories to its blue oval logo, as collateral to borrow more than $23 billion.

The financing leaves Ford with access to $46 billion in cash, although it expects to burn through $17 billion by 2009. In addition, the interest that Ford must pay will most likely drive down earnings from automotive operations even more in 2007. But the company’s chief financial officer, Don R. Leclair, said Ford’s overall results will be “substantially better” this year.

Mr. Mulally insisted repeatedly today, on a conference call with reporters and analysts, that Ford’s effort to overhaul itself, known as the Way Forward, is on track. But to outside observers, the company’s financial results have yet to give any sign of progress, and Ford concedes that its market share will continue to slide at least through September.

“We began aggressive actions in 2006 to restructure our automotive business so we can operate profitably at lower volumes and with a product mix that better reflects consumer demand for smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles,” Mr. Mulally said. “We fully recognize our business reality and are dealing with it. We have a plan and we are on track to deliver.”

About 40 percent of Ford’s hourly workers — some 30,000 employees — have agreed to leave their jobs this year in exchange for buyout or early-retirement packages, and the company is also shedding about 14,000 salaried positions. Those cuts, along with plans to close nine plants by the end of next year, are part of the Way Forward plan, which is meant to return the company to profitability in North America by 2009.

In 2006, Mr. Mulally said, Ford cut its annual structural costs by $1.4 billion. The restructuring plan calls for shaving off another $3.6 billion within two years.

Ford’s financial deterioration has caused something of a brain drain at the company, and the arrival of Mr. Mulally has been expected to prompt some other executives to leave as well. Despite its huge losses, Mr. Mulally acknowledged today that the company is considering offering bonuses to some executives to persuade them to stay on.

“At the end of the day, our success going forward will depend on having a skilled and motivated team,” he said, adding that a final decision would be made in the next few months.

Some analysts said that the action may be intended as much to help Mr. Mulally attract new talent to Ford as to retain current executives. He has yet to make any major changes in Ford’s top management, although he has brought in one former Boeing executive as a consultant.

“Everybody has choices, and people are going to look at what Ford offers you and what others are offering you,” Mr. Mulally said in an interview. “With executives, more of their pay is at risk. If we don’t pay them at the market rate and what their colleagues are making, we’re going to lose them.”

He said he hoped his comments would “start a dialogue to develop understanding of competitive pay practices.”

Still, the move could backfire by making unionized workers more resistant to the concessions that Ford wants from them. Ford did not pay any executive bonuses in 2005, when it made $1.44 billion.

Ford expects to lose its grip on second place in the American market sometime this year, when it is overtaken by Toyota. Ford’s market share has fallen to 17.5 percent last year, from 25.7 percent a decade ago. By the end of the year, Ford’s internal projections show that the company may even fall to fourth place, behind Toyota, the Chrysler unit of DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, the market leader.

Mr. Mulally caused a stir in Detroit last month when he flew to Tokyo to meet with Fujio Cho, the chairman of the Toyota Motor Company. Mr. Mulally said he asked for Mr. Cho’s advice on ways to streamline Ford’s manufacturing operations, and the that the two men had discussed cooperation on some technical matters.

But Mr. Mulally could well have sought Mr. Cho’s financial counsel, too, because the Ford loss for 2006 happens to almost exactly match the profit Toyota earned in 2005. That means there is a difference of more than $25 billion between the two companies’ financial performances.

The biggest blow to Ford in recent years has come from rising gasoline prices, which depressed sales of the big pickups and sport utility vehicles it depends on for profits.

Micheline Maynard contributed reporting from Detroit.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company


================================================== ================================================== =======================

You want to make some money. Read the next post.

[Adam in NYC USA]

Hey Ford Motor Company, want to make money, build this (Part 2)

Hello again from Adam in NYC

I am a owner of a 10 year Land Rover. It does show its age and I don't mind that. However, the world, as usual, is always changing. What you could get away with 10 years ago you can't do now.

We live in a world that is a-changing. Your world changed . My world as well.

Well , FordMoCo, you build cars for the world. You bought Jaguar and Land Rover and Volvo and learnt some things along the way. Now you lost a lot of money and have a whole lotta hurt to show for it.

What can we do about it?

How about you build a car or light truck for the guys and gals who like the outdoors and enjoy being in them?

Think you already did that? If you did, would you be in the financial position you are now?

Right.

Make a truck. Make it a small truck. Look at the Defender ,the Escape , and the Bronco Concept for a clue.

Use local parts for the region you are selling them in. Revised: Use readily available parts whenever possible and that are generated locally.

Give us a engine that you can put a carb or EFI by just swapping the intake manifold. Use a wet manifold and don't worry about supercharging it for now.

Give the choice of what fuel we wanna run with. Butane, Propane, E85, gas or diesel. Design two engines and take some cues from the competition. Use a open designed ignition and engine management system.

Let the buyer choose the options he or she can want or afford. Give us the choice for air ride or old-fashioned suspension.

Give the choice of three platforms: basic, intermediate , and advanced. The basic is just that. A basic truck with a back seat or turn it into a pickup. The intermediate is and will be the most popular. It should be priced accordingly. Put all the options into the intermediate. The owner of a basic will be able to upgrade to the higher classes. Make your money there on the accessories.

The advanced is for the audience here. If you want it off-road, have the kits available for alternative energy use. have special fittings for those you need a two-way radio or need a versitile platform for off-road, expeditionory, or public service.

Make it rugged but don't make it gadgety. Make it so we can love it and want to buy more than one.

Finally, sell it at the Ford dealership. Give it a badge but remember where you got the idea came from.

================================================== ================================================== =========================

I leave this here and make this open to the community. Insert your best idea here, for the survival of Ford and Land Rover. Up to the challenge?

Adam in NYC

[SCSL]

I like your ideas, but I'm not sure this:

Originally Posted by Adam in NYC USA

Use local parts for the region you are selling them in.

...is going to make them any money. That's a political consideration, not an economic one. There are a variety of reasons for Ford's impending demise. But one reason is clearly the inability of unionized American auto workers to compete in a global theater.

Plenty of foreign manufacturers have been able to successfully open plants here, including foreign auto companies. But they are in states who's capitals are not controlled by union hacks, run by polititians who don't prostitute themselves out to unions. No foreign manufacturer in their right mind would operate a union plant in the U.S. And neither should Ford,,, providing it wants to stay in business.

[Adam in NYC USA]

Then I revise my statement...

Use readily available parts whenever possible and that are generated locally.

My opinions and statements are not for a global market. It is for a NAS designed Ford "Rover" that can be made without undergoing the 18 month to 4 year product cycle from concept to final production model.

Use that inventory that was produced prior, and use that. If you have to use a Mustang engine and get an Allison tranny, fine.

But remember the goal of these posts are two-fold: the company has been in bad spots before and can recover. Ford has a financial plan and getting rid of all the one-shot debts was a smart idea. Secondly, people who bought Ford in the past still want to buy a Ford (INSERT LAND ROVER instead of Ford and you will mean what I say. Nonetheless, I have to speak in Fordspeak.)

I am an union man. Those statements are typical of one uninformed of company/union interactions.

Ford could have been truly efficient and do what the airlines done: abandon their prior commitments to hard-earned negotiated settlements such as the agreement of the pension systems. The stockholders would have been happy with the purging of the pension systems but then there would have been a mass curfixion at the next stockholders meeting by the angry auto workers.

However, Ford knows they have the best of the industry in union labor, and decided to give whats due.

I will not continue this tangent further because I believe there are sufficient readers of this website and forum to make such a auto model a reality.

Land Rover needs to go back to its roots. So does Ford. Make cars not only for North America but for the world. If you wont do a Defender fine, but there is a market for a light truck and the LR2/Freelander isn't it. Go back to the beginning.

[jhmover]

They already make a vehicle like that - it's called a Jeep Wrangler. You can get the basic model or go full tilt boogie with a Rubicon.

[WCURoverD90]

Originally Posted by jhmover

They already make a vehicle like that - it's called a Jeep Wrangler. You can get the basic model or go full tilt boogie with a Rubicon.

At least someone is continueing to make a 4x4 that is capable....

[Adam in NYC USA]

Originally Posted by jhmover

They already make a vehicle like that - it's called a Jeep Wrangler. You can get the basic model or go full tilt boogie with a Rubicon.

Hey dude, wake up. It's not a FORD.

Does it run on various fuels including DIESEL?

A new Jeep starts at A$18,000 and ends at A$36,000 (look at the MSRP for a Rubicon 4d Unlimited).

DUH!


Get some coffee.

[sideview]

Originally Posted by Adam in NYC USA

Land Rover needs to go back to its roots. So does Ford. Make cars not only for North America but for the world. If you wont do a Defender fine, but there is a market for a light truck and the LR2/Freelander isn't it. Go back to the beginning.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this. The LR2 & other LR models were one Ford segment that showed record sales globally in 2006.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0701/S00051.htm

I like what you are trying to do Adam, it would be great to have an SUV/light truck developed from the basic foundations of utility. This should be in addition to what they are currently doing with Land Rover though because there is a good global market already.

Maybe a little more reasonably priced, but I wouldn't want the price to be 'too' afforable if the new model carried the Land Rover brand. That would downgrade the brand altogether and probably isn't possible anyways. Perhaps a remodeling of the Bronco or totally new brand would be better.

[Adam in NYC USA]

Originally Posted by sideview

Not sure exactly what you mean by this. The LR2 & other LR models were one Ford segment that showed record sales globally in 2006.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0701/S00051.htm

When you need to pay the bills, a little pocket cash in a reporter's pocket goes a long way, like all the way to LRO.

Originally Posted by sideview

I like what you are trying to do Adam, it would be great to have an SUV/light truck developed from the basic foundations of utility. This should be in addition to what they are currently doing with Land Rover though because there is a good global market already.

Maybe a little more reasonably priced, but I wouldn't want the price to be 'too' afforable if the new model carried the Land Rover brand. That would downgrade the brand altogether and probably isn't possible anyways. Perhaps a remodeling of the Bronco or totally new brand would be better.

Finally, sell it at the Ford dealership. Give it a badge but remember where you got the idea came from.

[sideview]

Originally Posted by Adam in NYC USA

When you need to pay the bills, a little pocket cash in a reporter's pocket goes a long way, like all the way to LRO.

'06 Sales were up 3.5% for Land Rover from '05. Being a publicly held company Ford would be in big doo doo if they stretched the truth when the data came out.

[Adam in NYC USA]

Originally Posted by sideview

'06 Sales were up 3.5% for Land Rover from '05. Being a publicly held company Ford would be in big doo doo if they stretched the truth when the data came out.

That is nothing but a "public" announcement. If they printed that pigs are flying, you would believe it, would you? They publish that so 1. its something on a page and 2. it can be surrounded by advertisements. You read the page, how many adverts did you notice on the way out?

If you want the info, get it from the source, not from a rag called "scoop".

[jhmover]

Originally Posted by Adam in NYC USA

Hey dude, wake up. It's not a FORD.

Does it run on various fuels including DIESEL?

A new Jeep starts at A$18,000 and ends at A$36,000 (look at the MSRP for a Rubicon 4d Unlimited).

DUH!


Get some coffee.

Well sorry it's not a FORD. $18 to $36k is pretty reasonable nowadays. You get choices on how well or not you want it equipped, it can actually off-road, meets much of your criteria, but guess because it's not a Ford you're not interested. If you look at the marketplace, if Ford made such an animal you could bet it would be priced right there with the Wrangler anyway. No one's going to sell a car cheaper than what the marketplace will bear, it's called profit, which is something most employees could give a hoot about as long as the check is there on payday. I know I run my own business. The days of getting a new vehicle for $2,705.00 out the door are long, long gone. Even one of those glorified battery powered golf carts sells for like 4-5 grand, you can spend more than that on a motorcycle or ATV without even trying, so $18k starting price isn't bad in my opinion.

The lack of diesel engine I'd lay more on the EPA than Ford or anyone else, and in CA we get screwed anyway. For example they made a diesel Jeep Liberty but you can't get one in CA. They make a diesel Toureg, but you can't get one in CA. So it would be a useless concept to me.

Making an engine that would run on diesel, gas, E-85, LNG, hydrogen, etc., all with one engine is nice wishful thinking but I don't think you're going to see one because it would be about impossible to make, it would cost a fortune to make, getting the EPA to certify one would cost 5 fortunes, and besides, everyone's putting their money into other technologies such as hybrids and hydrogen. While I think it's totally silly that everyone on the planet can get a diesel anything, and the technology is evidently good enough for Europe, Canada, Australia, etc., and not for us, that's the way it is unfortunately.

At this time there's a lot of cars that run on gas or E-85, but again in CA it's useless to have an E-85 car because there's only 1 gas station in the whole state where you can get E-85, in San Diego which is about 500 miles south of here. Besides, E-85 isn't taking off that much anyway and most of what's going on is in the mid-west because they don't have a tree-hugger behind every bush trying to block any progress like we do here.

Regarding Ford, they have a gigantic hole to dig out of, it's going to affect a lot of people unfortunately, and there's 100's of reasons why they're having problems. Sounds like you may be one of them being affected by it. Ford isn't going to pull monkeys out of their ass and fix this overnight either, it will probably take years for them to dig out. That's what happens when you're asleep at the wheel.

[sideview]

Originally Posted by Adam in NYC USA

That is nothing but a "public" announcement. If they printed that pigs are flying, you would believe it, would you? They publish that so 1. its something on a page and 2. it can be surrounded by advertisements. You read the page, how many adverts did you notice on the way out?

If you want the info, get it from the source, not from a rag called "scoop".

I suggest YOU do some research. That was just a quick link I grabbed. Vehicle sales get reported to the government. Do you truly think they would get away with lying to Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Morgan & Company, yadayada, let alone shareholders?

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/relea...?release=25187

A 3.5% increase in U.S. sales alone in 2006. Land Rover sold 47,774 new vehicles in the U.S.

For perspective, in 2001 20,536 new Land Rovers were sold in the U.S.

Not sure why you want to argue facts - where are yours? You’ve got all these recommendations laid out nicely but what basis of proof do you provide that your ideas will really benefit Ford? There is no market research, analysis, facts in your letter to back up what you are saying. All I gather is you don't personally like the direction it's going so this is how you would like them to go. I'm not saying it's not a good letter, but if you truly want to have them take you seriously you'd be best to have some good data to back up what you say.

You may not like the direction that Land Rover has gone for your personal interests but targeting a market broader than only the specialized off-road segment seems like a smart move financially.

Should I mention all the awards they have won? Surely the award committees got paid off as well…no wonder Ford's losing money lol.

Like I said before, a more off-road capable utility would be great in addition to the new models, so as not to alienate the 4x4 community, but really I doubt this would be more than a drop in the bucket in helping Fords problems. And to replace them altogether would in no way 'save' Ford.

[Series 3 guy]

Originally Posted by sideview

I suggest YOU do some research. That was just a quick link I grabbed. Vehicle sales get reported to the government. Do you truly think they would get away with lying to Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Morgan & Company, yadayada, let alone shareholders?

http://media.ford.com/newsroom/relea...?release=25187

A 3.5% increase in U.S. sales alone in 2006. Land Rover sold 47,774 new vehicles in the U.S.

For perspective, in 2001 20,536 new Land Rovers were sold in the U.S.

Not sure why you want to argue facts - where are yours? You’ve got all these recommendations laid out nicely but what basis of proof do you provide that your ideas will really benefit Ford? There is no market research, analysis, facts in your letter to back up what you are saying. All I gather is you don't personally like the direction it's going so this is how you would like them to go. I'm not saying it's not a good letter, but if you truly want to have them take you seriously you'd be best to have some good data to back up what you say.

You may not like the direction that Land Rover has gone for your personal interests but targeting a market broader than only the specialized off-road segment seems like a smart move financially.

Should I mention all the awards they have won? Surely the award committees got paid off as well…no wonder Ford's losing money lol.

Like I said before, a more off-road capable utility would be great in addition to the new models, so as not to alienate the 4x4 community, but really I doubt this would be more than a drop in the bucket in helping Fords problems. And to replace them altogether would in no way 'save' Ford.

I might not be as ed u ma cated as Big wheelin' all knowing big city Adam,however I would say argument for argument sakes a lame way to take on a serious debate.
Look...Ford will NOT be using alternative fuel vehicles anytime soon.If you believe that...put down your bong long enought to see the obvious.
The success of Land Rover will depend on what Ford does with Jag and Aston.Jag's R&D budget has been an blank check for years and what do they have to show for it???A defunk-t F1 team and a new jag that looks just like the new aston but only 13k cheaper. Why buy the Jag??? Thats right you wouldnt. It's that "wild" dessign team stupidity that JAg/Ford is stuck into.
Ford has done a good job with marketing and designing the new RR Sport that will help the Bank balance however,Ford will have to turn a profit.That means selling JAg and Aston. The fact behind that is that LR will be included in the sale as they are the only successful Brand in their English Auto industry portfolio.
I can assume that I will be shot to pieces over this non factual bit of rambling but oh well.

[MPi-KMS-72]

Originally Posted by Series 3 guy

,Ford will have to turn a profit.That means selling JAg and Aston. The fact behind that is that LR will be included in the sale as they are the only successful Brand in their English Auto industry portfolio.
I can assume that I will be shot to pieces over this non factual bit of rambling but oh well.

Aston Martin has been for sale since August, no other marque is included in the sale, they don't feel it is needed to "sweeten" the deal.

~august:

Ford announced today it has begun the process of "exploring strategic options for Aston Martin" — with particular emphasis on a potential sale of all or a portion of the unit. "As part of our ongoing strategic review, we have determined that Aston Martin may be an attractive opportunity to raise capital and generate value," said Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bill Ford. "Aston Martin Lagonda has flourished under Ford ownership, which is why we believe it is prudent to consider a sale of all or part of this prized brand. Since Aston Martin’s dealer network, product architecture and size are distinctly different from other Ford brands, it is the most logical and capital-smart divestiture choice. The objective of any sale would be to position Aston Martin within a structure and resource base sufficient to allow it to reach its full potential, while enabling Ford to efficiently raise capital for its other brands."



Mr. Ford added, "Regarding our other Premier Automotive Group brands, we've made no decisions, as our review of strategic alternatives continues. However, we continue to be encouraged by Jaguar's progress and by the strength and consumer appeal of the Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo product lineups."

Thursday, 31 August 2006, 15:23 GMT 16:23 UK :

Ford considers Aston Martin sale

James Bond will be driving an Aston Martin again in the next 007 film
Aston Martin could soon be sold off, after owner Ford announced that it was looking at the future of the brand.
Ford said it was exploring strategic options for the luxury brand "with particular emphasis on a potential sale" of all or part of the unit.

A spokesman for the firm said it had already received a number of approaches for the brand from potential buyers.

Ford added there was no guarantee the review would result in Aston - made famous by James Bond - being sold.

"As part of our ongoing strategic review, we have determined that Aston Martin may be an attractive opportunity to raise capital and generate value," said chairman and chief executive Bill Ford.

"Aston Martin Lagonda has flourished under Ford ownership, which is why we believe it is prudent to consider a sale of all or part of this prized brand."

Easier sale

Experts said Ford had probably decided to sell Aston Martin as it was a profitable business and so would be easier to dispose of.

Tom Donnelly, a motor industry specialist at Coventry Business School, said selling the business would help Ford to fund its massive restructuring drive in the US.

"It's one way to free up cash and fund subsequent redundancies in the US," he told BBC News.

He added that the brand was seen as the "jewel in the crown of luxury brands", and while it may not be attractive to other car firms as the industry goes through a tough period it would be an attractive proposition for a private equity firm.

"A private equity buyer would be good for jobs and for the car, it would mean a fresh injection of capital into Aston Martin," he said.

Struggling

Aston is part of the Premier Automotive Group (PAG) of luxury car brands which also includes Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo.

The division has been struggling in recent years, and in a filing to US financial watchdogs earlier this month Ford said it expected PAG to be unprofitable in 2006.

However, Mr Ford said the group had not yet made a decision on the future of the entire division.

Founded in 1913, Aston Martin now has its headquarters in Gaydon, Warwickshire. It employs around 1,700 people at two sites, one in Gaydon, the other at Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire.

The business sold an estimated 4,500 cars last year and has set a target of 5,000 sales this year.

News that the iconic Aston brand could be sold off follows recent speculation that Ford's underperforming UK Jaguar unit could also be put up for sale. Earlier this month machinery group JCB said it was interested in buying Jaguar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5302310.stm


now:

Aston Martin sale imminent
Posted Dec 11th 2006 6:51AM by Damon Lavrinc

More developments are underway as to what marque within Ford's Premier Auto Group (PAG) will be unloaded and to whom. The recent news is that more than 30 would-be investors began a bidding war for Aston Martin recently and when the dust settled, four were left standing.

Some of the investors knocked out during the process include Aston Martin CEO, Dr. Ulrich Bez, who partnered with other investors hailing from Asia. Dr. Bez and his friends were escorted out of the building along with the European business duo of Bernard Arnault and Albert Frere.

Of the four left standing, three have yet to disclose their identity publicly. The one that has been confirmed is Simon Halabi, who was born in Syria and has supposedly thrown over $1 billion into the ring.

With this much activity transpiring, we'd expect a sale to take place soon. Exactly when is another question.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/12/11/a...sale-imminent/


and:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Louis Vuitton to acquire Aston Martin


French luxury goods maker LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA — better known as just Louis Vuitton — has won an auction to acquire Aston Martin from Ford, according to a German news report.


The news will appear in weekly auto magazine Autobild tomorrow, according to Marke****ch, which obtained an advance copy of the article. The Autobild report cites well-placed but anonymous sources.


Earlier this week, bidding ended for Aston Martin, which has been up for "auction" since August. Ford is selling the successful sports car company in order to raise much-needed capital.


Ford will retain a 15 percent stake in the company, according to the report. No details on the sale price were given, but a report by Britain's Sunday Times in December put valuation as high as $1.2

http://www.landroverusaforums.com/fo...read.php?t=575