99 Cobra class action lawsuit - BON
cg...@my-deja.com
Count me in!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Frank Walton
Count me in!
....................
I say;
Ok, will do. Send me your credit card number so I can
charge $7,500 to cover your portion of the cost of
initiating this litigation..
Howie Cheatem Esquire
Frank
Kevin McEvoy
defect. They are fixing it for free! Just another "you have money and I
want some of it!" thing huh?
Kevin McEvoy
Jasen
news:37E93150...@usit.net...
> Why? So they made a mistake, it's not like it was some serious safety
> defect. They are fixing it for free! Just another "you have money and I
> want some of it!" thing huh?
Well if the loss in resale value is sizable, that is an actual loss that was
caused by Ford and will not be made up to their customers. Also, if the
true problem is the heads and they're leaving them on, then this car has a
loss of potential which goes again to the resale value of the car even after
the "fix".
Please note that, to my knowledge, Ford has never called this a "fix".
Their letter to owners was very careful not to term it as a "fix". That is
a word that people outside of Ford/SVT have used to describe what is being
proposed to adjust the HP problems. If the problem is the heads and they
don't touch them, then the problem is not fixed. The HP is adjusted to
advertised rates, but the root cause is still there.
None of this even touches the issue of warrantee. The general consensus
here about dealer mechanics is abysmal, and these are the ones that will be
installing the "fix". Add to this that the problems with a lot of the
Cobras seems indicate a lack of quality in certain areas. With what seems
to be a lowering of the build quality, who will pay for that? Again the
Cobra owners.
Not that I'm supporting the class action suit, I'm still undecided about it
myself. I just wanted to point out that the issues are slightly more
involved than just a straight forward "oops wrong part, here's the right
one" kind of thing and that the owners involved have more to consider than
just "Oh boy, free money".
For the record, my Cobra has been great so far (knock on wood). I'm sure
that it suffers from the lack of HP, but none of the other usual problems
that people comment on.
--
Jasen
'99 Cobra black
K&N
Steeda Tri-ax
Erich Coiner
> Please note that, to my knowledge, Ford has never called this a "fix".
> Their letter to owners was very careful not to term it as a "fix". That is
> a word that people outside of Ford/SVT have used to describe what is being
> proposed to adjust the HP problems. If the problem is the heads and they
> don't touch them, then the problem is not fixed. The HP is adjusted to
> advertised rates, but the root cause is still there.
> Steeda Tri-ax
If the action Ford takes results in a car with the horsepower that they
advertised you have suffered no harm.
Ford advertised how much hp you would get, NOT how they would achieve
that. As we all know, there are many ways to boost hp. All of them
involve increasing breathing or reducing friction.
If Ford can get to advertised hp by reducing the restrictions in the
exhaust instead of the heads, what do you care?
Yeah, I know, free flowing heads are better than free flowing exhaust
because it is cheaper and easier for you to put flowmasters on and get
even more hp. But the bottom line is if they get you 320 hp at the crank
then they are done. How they do it is irrelevant and you cannot prove
any damage.
Erich
Scott M. Hayes
#1 Do you own a 1999 Ford Cobra?
#2 Do you understand how any lawsuit works?
I in fact do own a 1999 Cobra that is low on the horsepower, has rear end
clunks, severe driveline backlash, poor fitting interior and exterior panels,
paint blemishes from the factory and mild vibration problems. Everyone knows
that the 1999 Cobra's have a tarnished name. Resale value is down. The cars
in the shop. There's a void in my bank account and I'm driving around in a
loaner Contour. Ford has said that a fix is on the way for the HP but they
refuse to say when. I've had the car since April. How long is it going to
take for my car to get to the condition it was supposed be in when it left the factory?
This lawyer, Scott McKay, operates just like any other lawyer. He's not going
to get into a lawsuit where he doesn't think he stands to gain money. A class
action lawsuit involves all of the 1999 Cobra owners who purchased their car
before a certain time. They don't have to seek out personal legal attention.
It's not going to cost every owner thousands of dollars. If the suit is
awarded in favor of Mr. McKay and the '99 owners, Mr. McKay takes his cut to
cover his costs and profit and the '99 owners benefit in whatever manner was
decided in court.
Nothing is likely to come out of this class action deal anyway. Ford needs to
communicate a bit better than they are. Non-'99 Cobra owners would probably
be reluctant to call themselves money hungry crybabies if they actually had to
deal with these problems. The damn thing has had more work done on it in the
past five months than my '85 Bronco.
I say everyone just settle down and let's see what happens. I'm anxious to
hear results from the "chosen few" who are having the fix applied soon.
Scott
'99 Black Cobra Coupe
Frank Walton
((It's not going to cost every owner thousands of dollars.
If the suit is awarded in favor of Mr. McKay and the
'99 owners, Mr. McKay takes his cut to cover his costs
and profit and the '99 owners benefit in whatever
manner was decided in court.))
....................
The way I see it, the lawyer get 50% plus 25% for the
cost of the suit and the balance is divided buy the
members of the class. The next years Mustangs go up
$300 to cover Fords cost of defending the action.
Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
Jasen
> $300 to cover Fords cost of defending the action.
> Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
So you're saying roll over and take it and let them know that quality
doesn't really matter and that it is ok to cut corners and let quality
suffer since it makes those short term profits better. So what if a bone
must be thrown. Economically, it works out. Next time they just know to
protect themselves better about power claims and just take the most
economical, cost cutting path.
At a minimum, if just the threat of a class action suit makes the next batch
of Cobras better then we all win.
The risk is that the lack of complaints and action on those complaints would
send a sign to the decision makers at Ford that things like this really
don't matter to the consumer. It's that same kind of thinking that keeps
the 5.4 out of main production. There's a BON article that interviews an
employee about the 5.4 issue and one of the statements, if I remember
correctly, goes to the effect that the consumers they care about aren't
concerned with getting a really powerful car so they don't concentrate on
producing a powerful car (i.e. a car with a 5.4 engine). That same logic
would dictate that if the consumer isn't concerned with getting a high
quality car, one without clunks, paint chips, vibrations or one that doesn't
hold its resale value...
By your logic, you'd rather have $300 and a high chance that the new Mustang
that you just saved years for and bought has some major problem with it that
may or may not be addressed by Ford voluntarily? Even then it may not even
address the core issues? And lastly, should you want to part with it, it
will be worth much less later than it should have been. To me *that* sounds
like a far worse deal.
To someone not immediately affected, the idea of a class action suit may
sound like whiners looking for free money. To someone getting the short end
of the stick, it's the possibility of getting what's right and to help
people not get into a similar situation in the future. When a wrong happens
to someone other than yourself, it is still a wrong. Just because it missed
you this time doesn't mean that it won't effect you in the future.
Geez, hearing all of this you'd think that I was in on the suit, but I'm
not. I'm still very undecided about it. There isn't even enough
information available yet for me to consider being included or not (such as
how much of a percentage the law firm would actually take). I just think
that letting a large company get away with such a sudden, dramatic loss in
quality (especially on a flagship product) sets a bad precedent hurting the
most current customers and the future customers. I regret that such actions
need to even be considered. If quality had been maintained, there wouldn't
be such a situation. I've been lucky with mine so far. Unfortunately, others
haven't been so lucky.
What would the response have been if it were the GT that were down 10-13% on
power? So instead of making 240 rwhp, it would have been about 210 rwhp?
(remember the V6 is rated at 190 at the crank)
Ruteger
news:37E95329...@ptdprolog.net...
> The way I see it, the lawyer get 50% plus 25% for the
> cost of the suit and the balance is divided buy the
> members of the class. The next years Mustangs go up
> $300 to cover Fords cost of defending the action.
> Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
The way I see it, it will be a good deal if it causes the quality of next
year's Mustang (or Cobra) to be substantially improved and all performance
information (like horsepower rating and zero-to-sixty time) used to entice
potential customers is accurate when released by Ford.
Suing Ford, although the short-term, tangible gains might be minimal, could
be much more beneficial in the long run by having them think twice before
being so cavalier in their corporate actions to make money for their
shareholders when these actions actually cost the company millions in court
costs from angry consumers.
BTW, automobiles increase yearly somewhere around the rate of inflation,
usually around $300 per vehicle, so the price of Mustangs is going to
increase regardless of any lawsuit.
Jasen
Erich Coiner <erich_...@NOSPAMhp.com> wrote in message
news:37E93...@NOSPAMhp.com...
<stuff deleted>
> > Steeda Tri-ax
>
I take it this selective quote is your attempt at trying to point out that
I've already altered the car myself and that by doing this I have no rights?
It's my personal decision and should't negate my rights as a customer. We
should all be familiar with the "How do Mods affect warrentee" question by
now and the problems risked by keeping the stock shifter.
> If the action Ford takes results in a car with the horsepower that they
> advertised you have suffered no harm.
Except for the reduction of the intrinsic value of the car. Imagine that it
is years from now and I'm trying to sell the car. Anyone looking for a
Mustang will know that this one came from the factory already blemished and
will pass on it unless I'm willing to reduce the price of it, possibly even
more so depending upon what has been done to the car. But before mods even
enters the picture, it is known ahead of time that the intrinsic value of
the car is substantially lower than other years because of these problems.
That is the harm. I realize that at purchase time, there were no promises
of how it would retain its value. I am just stating that there is harm
being done in what is and is not contained in the "fix".
> Ford advertised how much hp you would get, NOT how they would achieve
> that. As we all know, there are many ways to boost hp. All of them
> involve increasing breathing or reducing friction.
> If Ford can get to advertised hp by reducing the restrictions in the
> exhaust instead of the heads, what do you care?
> Yeah, I know, free flowing heads are better than free flowing exhaust
> because it is cheaper and easier for you to put flowmasters on and get
> even more hp. But the bottom line is if they get you 320 hp at the crank
> then they are done. How they do it is irrelevant and you cannot prove
> any damage.
The market will prove the damage, if it already isn't proving the damage.
>
> Erich
Bottom line is that if I can get my lost power, and I'm lucky enough to not
be hit by the other big problems that are plaguing other owners, I'll be
happy as a clam and not even worry about resale. After all, when I bought
this car, I was planning on keeping for a very, very long time. However, if
it starts turning into a lemon as time goes on, I will definitely suffer the
damage done to its intrinsic value (in fact it would be those factors
forcing its value down that force me to want to part with it).
Speaking as a '99 Cobra owner, I feel somewhat cheated and let down by Ford.
If there is something that I can do to alleviate these feelings or help
ensure that others don't end up in a similar situation after such a major
purchase from Ford, then I will consider them.
--
Jasen
'99 Cobra black
K&N
<bold>Steeda Tri-ax</bold>
Scott M. Hayes
By the way, did any of you recently receive your latest issue of "SVT
Enthusiast"? About 20 pages of non-content fluff. Stories about people in
love with their SVT Contour and how it gets looks from those "certain European
sports sedan drivers". A couple mentions of the '99 Cobra but nothing
containing any substance. They didn't brag about it or mention the problems.
Kind of a hands-off issue I guess. I hope they have spent more time on
addressing the problem to the cars than on producing this wastebasket filler.
Last week on our local news in Phoenix they ran a story on a '99 Cobra owner
whose car has been in the shop for about 45 of the 90 days that he's owned it.
They never could fix the vibes. He's eligible for the lemon in the state of
AZ. I wonder how much bad publicity Ford can take before they react. I'm
just tired of hearing nothing.
No posts from me for a couple of days. I'm tired of this subject.
Jerry
knowledge and wisdom.
Scott M. Hayes <r37...@email.sps.mot.com> wrote in message
news:37E94840...@email.sps.mot.com...
> It's not going to cost every owner thousands of dollars. If the suit is
> awarded in favor of Mr. McKay and the '99 owners, Mr. McKay takes his cut
to
> cover his costs and profit and the '99 owners benefit in whatever manner
was
> decided in court.
>
> Nothing is likely to come out of this class action deal anyway. Ford
needs to
> communicate a bit better than they are. Non-'99 Cobra owners would
probably
> be reluctant to call themselves money hungry crybabies if they actually
had to
> deal with these problems. The damn thing has had more work done on it in
the
> past five months than my '85 Bronco.
>
> I say everyone just settle down and let's see what happens. I'm anxious
to
> hear results from the "chosen few" who are having the fix applied soon.
>
Frank Walton
usually around $300 per vehicle, so the price of Mustangs is going to
increase regardless of any lawsuit.
Not necessarily, some of Fords current models actually cost
less than previous models. If you think the consumer
doesn't pay for law suits, ask the smokers.
Frank
Frank Walton
there is none. Lawyers love the suckers, they will
always tell you there is a chance you can win. If you
have a problem take the vehicle to the dealer, it is
under warranty for three years or 36,000 miles. Then
If it is not repaired properly use Fords Arbitration
procedure. (YOU MUST go through that process before
the courts will hear your complaint.) If you think
the arbitration award is flawed then start a civil
action. Besides you are going to have the vehicle
for the length of you loan, 4 or five years on average,
why not enjoy it. Go for a ride in you ride. Stop
complaining to the MAJORITY, most of us simply do
not have problems with our vehicles.
....................
cg...@my-deja.com
and I'll give it to you then :-)
cg...@my-deja.com
1. I believe the resale value of my '99 Cobra is going to be negatively
affected by this fiasco (sp?). This is the only chance I will ever have
to get some of that money back.
2. I still have other problems with the car that are not addressed by
this recall: thump in differential (dealer hasn't fixed in two trips),
vibration (wasn't fixed by dealer work on drive shaft).
With the way all '99 Cobra owners had to band together and FORCE!!! Ford
into making this recall, I don't want to have to go through that again.
I don't think the car mags, etc., will be showing much interest in
addressing any other '99 Cobra issues. The Cobra now shares the same
spotlight that Billy, the scum, Clinton shares: people are just tired of
hearing about his problems and just don't care anymore.
Craig
Kevin McEvoy <kjm...@usit.net> wrote:
> Why? So they made a mistake, it's not like it was some serious safety
> defect. They are fixing it for free! Just another "you have money and
I
> want some of it!" thing huh?
>
> Kevin McEvoy
>
> cg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Check out BON. http://www.blueovalnews.com.
> >
> > Count me in!
> >
cg...@my-deja.com
There are several ways to reduce the cost:
1. Use inferior parts,
2. Don't worry about quality,
3. Remove functionality,
4. Decrease production costs regardless of affects on product.
Damn, I've just described the '99 Cobra. You're right, Ford has proved
you can control costs.
Craig
Art Beggs & son
I suggest anyone interested use Deja news to go back and check out the
discussion some months back on CALs. I thought one of the most
pertinent comments was that Cobra owners would be going in front of a
judge not for any safety defect, but to say that their expensive
sports cars aren't fast enough. As for resale value, again, you have
to convince a judge that the collector value your Cobra has been
damaged, something which Ford never made any advertising claim about
one way or the other.
Art Beggs & son
wrote:
>Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
>news:37E95329...@ptdprolog.net...
>
>> The way I see it, the lawyer get 50% plus 25% for the
>> cost of the suit and the balance is divided buy the
>> members of the class. The next years Mustangs go up
>> $300 to cover Fords cost of defending the action.
>> Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
>
>The way I see it, it will be a good deal if it causes the quality of next
>year's Mustang (or Cobra) to be substantially improved and all performance
>information (like horsepower rating and zero-to-sixty time) used to entice
>potential customers is accurate when released by Ford.
Of course, it could simply cause Ford to stop making Cobras
altogether. The Cobra is a specialty car which is used to
boost the image of the company and the Mustang in particular.
Since it isn't doing the job, and is in fact counter productive,
why continue it? I'll bet Ford's profit margin on the Cobra,
particularly this year with the R&D for the IRS development factored
in, is nowhere near what it is for a GT.
Jeff Foster
Jeff
Frank Walton wrote in message <37E97738...@ptdprolog.net>...
Jeff Foster
get on order before advertising a fix for the Cobra? Maybo to boost the 00
GT sales because by now, everyone knows they are great ank for the buck
compared to an unfixed Cobra. Im sure that will change when the Cobras
start getting the fixes.
Jeff
Ruteger <*rut...@email.msn.com> wrote in message ...
>Frank Walton <may...@ptdprolog.net> wrote in message
>news:37E95329...@ptdprolog.net...
>
>> The way I see it, the lawyer get 50% plus 25% for the
>> cost of the suit and the balance is divided buy the
>> members of the class. The next years Mustangs go up
>> $300 to cover Fords cost of defending the action.
>> Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
>
>The way I see it, it will be a good deal if it causes the quality of next
>year's Mustang (or Cobra) to be substantially improved and all performance
>information (like horsepower rating and zero-to-sixty time) used to entice
>potential customers is accurate when released by Ford.
>
>Suing Ford, although the short-term, tangible gains might be minimal, could
>be much more beneficial in the long run by having them think twice before
>being so cavalier in their corporate actions to make money for their
>shareholders when these actions actually cost the company millions in court
>costs from angry consumers.
>
Xx Sdrawkcab daeR xX
<may...@ptdprolog.net> writes:
>You said;
>
>Count me in!
>....................
>
>I say;
>
>Ok, will do. Send me your credit card number so I can
>charge $7,500 to cover your portion of the cost of
>initiating this litigation..
>
>Howie Cheatem Esquire
>
>Frank
Frank,
No offense but where do you get some of this stuff? Being a party to a class
action suit doesn't cost you any money. Unless of course you wish to travel
and observe or testify at the hearing. I've been a party in more than one CA
suit due to stocks and stock funds I own. * I * have always been notified by
the attorney(s) for the litigants and my interests are always covered
regardless of what my actions are. So far I've gotten a nice dividend/damages
check and the rest are still pending. I've paid no monies to anyone. Not a
dime.
And for the record I think any CA suit in this case is premature. Ford is
attempting to fix the Cobras. If after the fix is made the hp problem isn't
solved, THEN start the suit proceedings.
Sara [ who's really not trying to pick on Frank tonight. ;-) ]
-----------------------
SableSW®
'97 GT AOD
ITFC # 0008
In article <377d5505...@news.dial.pipex.com>, da...@cyba.co.uk
writes: " I find that I am ALWAYS talking about things I know nothing about."
Kevin McEvoy
Scott M. Hayes wrote:
> To Kevin and Frank:
>
> #1 Do you own a 1999 Ford Cobra?
nope
> #2 Do you understand how any lawsuit works?
To some degree, obviously not as much as you.I guess now I can understand you're position a
little better, my main beef lies in the fact that it seems as though just about everything
these days will somehow wind up in a lawsuit. Ford screwed up with the Cobra, that we all
know. But they are doing IMO a good job at resolving the situation. Sure it seems like it's
taking too long, but consider that parts have to developed, tested, tooling made and then
organizing the big fix.
The other problems you mention, well I don't hear the GT and LX owners wanting to sue
because of poor interior and exterior panel fitting.
Because of the exposure of this problem (thanks to BON) Ford is now forced to increase
quality on the cars, the majority of folks wanting a 00 Cobra are most likely quite aware
of the HP issue and aren't going to settle for anything less.
Kevin McEvoy
Jasen
news:37ead3bd...@news.flash.net...
Yes! These are the main reasons that I'm so undecided about the suit
myself. Feeling cheated by Ford and then convincing a Court of Law that
you've been cheated by a corporation are two different things. There's
what's right, and then there's the law ;-)
--
Jasen
'99 Cobra black
K&N
Steeda Tri-ax
Frank Walton
dime.
That's because they took you share out before they sent
you your check. If you want REAL money bring suit yourself.
Frank
Frank Walton
they said you had left, Sorry.
....................
Howie Cheatem
Frank Walton
....................
Ya' and that is BEFORE any judgment.
Frank
Jeff Foster
on one model, and theres no reason to do that.
Frank Walton wrote in message <37EA5BF1...@ptdprolog.net>...
Sylvain
and for sure the value of this car with the "fix" or whatever we can call
it, is now worth less money than if there were no fix and no talk on this
car... Now the 35th anniversary of the Cobra will remain in the head of
everybody a "problem Cobra" so resale value will be a lot less than what all
of us as predicted!
Sylvain
Erich Coiner wrote in message <37E93...@NOSPAMhp.com>...
>Jasen wrote:
>
>If the action Ford takes results in a car with the horsepower that they
>advertised you have suffered no harm.
>Ford advertised how much hp you would get, NOT how they would achieve
>that. As we all know, there are many ways to boost hp. All of them
>involve increasing breathing or reducing friction.
>If Ford can get to advertised hp by reducing the restrictions in the
>exhaust instead of the heads, what do you care?
>Yeah, I know, free flowing heads are better than free flowing exhaust
>because it is cheaper and easier for you to put flowmasters on and get
>even more hp. But the bottom line is if they get you 320 hp at the crank
>then they are done. How they do it is irrelevant and you cannot prove
>any damage.
>
>Erich
Xx Sdrawkcab daeR xX
<may...@ptdprolog.net> writes:
>I've paid no monies to anyone. Not a
>dime.
>
>....................
>
>That's because they took you share out before they sent
>you your check.
>Frank
And this of course doesn't happen in a regular suit. Uh huh...
> If you want REAL money bring suit yourself.
Lets see....CA suit where I pay no money and are sent a check versus individual
suit where I pay through the nose ( usually at least a retainer fee) AND it
costs me my time in court for a POSSIBLE payout?
No contest Frank. CA suits are initiated by a group of individuals because
they are stronger and have a better case based on the sheer number of people
suing as the group. Think of it as ' strength in numbers' if you wish.
Individually they more than likely have no chance to win the case so individual
suits is not a viable option.
And in all but a few rare cases the attorneys fees are always taken from the
judgement award.
Sara
Josh Turner
Xx Sdrawkcab daeR xX wrote:
>
> In article <37EA5B27...@ptdprolog.net>, Frank Walton
> <may...@ptdprolog.net> writes:
>
> >I've paid no monies to anyone. Not a
> >dime.
> >
> >....................
> >
> >That's because they took you share out before they sent
> >you your check.
>
> >Frank
>
> And this of course doesn't happen in a regular suit. Uh huh...
>
> > If you want REAL money bring suit yourself.
>
> Lets see....CA suit where I pay no money and are sent a check versus individual
> suit where I pay through the nose ( usually at least a retainer fee) AND it
> costs me my time in court for a POSSIBLE payout?
>
> No contest Frank. CA suits are initiated by a group of individuals because
> they are stronger and have a better case based on the sheer number of people
> suing as the group. Think of it as ' strength in numbers' if you wish.
> Individually they more than likely have no chance to win the case so individual
> suits is not a viable option.
To pick some nits: Class action suits aren't inherently stronger than
individual suits, from a legal perspective. The burden that you have to
meet in each is the same, and if you are a member of a class that was
injured it theoretically would be fairly easy to prove damages in an
individual suit. In fact, if you couldn't prove your case in an
individual suit, then the class is certified improperly, because you
didn't suffer compensable injury.
The problem is not in the proof, but in the damages. Class actions
aggregate the damages of lots of people, which makes it easier to
finance a lawsuit. A person who suffers $90 worth of damages will never
bring suit; even if he wanted to, the lawyer's cut would only be $30 and
no one would take that case on contingency for such a small sum. OTOH,
combine 10,000 people together, and suddenly the damages are $900,000
and the lawyers share is $300,000. Starting to look more appealing.
The real winners in most consumer class action litigation are the trial
attorneys. Usually, these attorneys are the ones who drum up the case in
the first place (as the guy on BON is doing); they end up with 30% of
millions, and each plaintiff ends up with a gift certificate.
> And in all but a few rare cases the attorneys fees are always taken from the
> judgement award.
>
In contingency cases, yes. Most mass torts are handled on a contingency
basis, for the reasons described above.
Walt
And the "gift certificate" typically requires you to purchase another
product from the company you are unhappy to begin with. If you are
unhappy with your Cobra, do you really want a $50 off coupon which
is only valid if you purchase another Cobra?
Walt
from SVT will be going around fixing them.
There really aren't a lot of Cobras around. A group of SVT people
could conceivably cover them all. It might even be easier to fix
them themselves than to train dealer personnel to do it.
Jasen wrote:
>
> None of this even touches the issue of warrantee. The general consensus
> here about dealer mechanics is abysmal, and these are the ones that will be
> installing the "fix".
Walt
should have very easily shown these up.
Franklin Edward Sadler
: Of course, it could simply cause Ford to stop making Cobras
: altogether. The Cobra is a specialty car which is used to
: boost the image of the company and the Mustang in particular.
: Since it isn't doing the job, and is in fact counter productive,
: why continue it? I'll bet Ford's profit margin on the Cobra,
: particularly this year with the R&D for the IRS development factored
: in, is nowhere near what it is for a GT.
That's what i have been thinking this whole time back in my little corner.
I wouldn't put too much hope on next years cobras being 'fixed' with more
horsepower. To me it would seem cheaper to change 3 numbers in a brochure.
Though, I would take the route on making a meaner cobra...hehehe...Who
needs the 5.4? Put something even bigger...Well, now Im getting carried
away...
L8r...
--
M U S T A N G Z !
Franklin Edward Sadler
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Email: gte...@prism.gatech.edu
Ruteger
say the least. There has been a big flap over the
$2000-off-your-next-new-truck-purchase certificates that were issued to GM
truck owners in a recent multi-million dollar court settlement recently. It
seems that many of the owners of these older trucks cannot afford to
purchase a new GM truck so, to most, the certificates are, for all intents
and purposes, worthless.
Or so GM had hoped. Some enterprising character has decided to purchase
unused certificates, then sell them to people who can use them (over the
Internet, no less). Since this means that GM may actually have to *pay* what
they said they would, they are, of course, fighting the practice in court.
Walt <Wa...@Early.com> wrote in message news:37EBC88D...@Early.com...
Xx Sdrawkcab daeR xX
>The real winners in most consumer class action litigation are the trial
>attorneys. Usually, these attorneys are the ones who drum up the case in
>the first place (as the guy on BON is doing); they end up with 30% of
>millions, and each plaintiff ends up with a gift certificate.
>
>> And in all but a few rare cases the attorneys fees are always taken from the
>> judgement award.
>>
>
>In contingency cases, yes. Most mass torts are handled on a contingency
>basis, for the reasons described above.
Thank you for the input and although you picked some nits there wasn't anything
I said you really disputed, was there? I've said there is strength in numbers
in a CA suit. I never brought up individual burden of proof since I'm assuming
you can prove your case before taking it to court. Burden of proof does not
mean you'll win a case however and what I said is : " Individually they more
than likely have no chance to win the case so individual suits is not a viable
option. " What I ment here is usually CA suits are undertaken against large
corporations. This is always very costly and history shows one individual
doesn't usually prevail against the large corporations with their teams of
corporate attorneys. A perfect example are the damage suits against the
tobacco industry. Individuals have tried for years to sue the tobacco
companies with very little results. ( I think one or two individuals may have
won separate cases in the past few years) Now look at that situation compared
to the states Attorneys General banding together and recently winning the
largest settlement ever in corporate history. It was the applied pressure of
all these individual states and their AG's which IMO swayed the court and the
jury to find in their favor.
Sara ( who quit smoking 4 years ago after a 20 year habit and who would never
sue the tobacco industry for my own foolish addiction and behavior. )
Frank Walton
habit and who would never sue the tobacco industry
for my own foolish addiction and behavior. )
....................
Gee why not everyone else is, including The Clinton
mal-adminastration. Cigarette prices are going
through the roof. There are suits against the gun
manufactures because they KNOW guns are used to
kill people. Surely the price of guns will go up.
Next we get to where the lawyers really want this
to go. We sue the automobile manufactures because
they KNOW cars kill people. By then an Eocene box
will cost $40,000. Perhaps people MIGHT not sue
the car companies because the are addicted and have
foolish driving habits (behavior.) Ya right.
Frank
Xx Sdrawkcab daeR xX
<may...@ptdprolog.net> writes:
>Sara ( who quit smoking 4 years ago after a 20 year
>habit and who would never sue the tobacco industry
>for my own foolish addiction and behavior. )
>....................
>
>Gee why not everyone else is,
The short answer is I was taught to take responsibilty for my own actions.
>including The Clinton mal-adminastration. Cigarette prices are going
>through the roof. There are suits against the gun
>manufactures because they KNOW guns are used to
>kill people. Surely the price of guns will go up.
>Next we get to where the lawyers really want this
>to go. We sue the automobile manufactures because
>they KNOW cars kill people. By then an Eocene box
>will cost $40,000. Perhaps people MIGHT not sue
>the car companies because the are addicted and have
>foolish driving habits (behavior.) Ya right.
>
>Frank
You know Frank, sometimes you nearly put me to sleep with this stuff. :-)) I
will say I've never felt an inanimate object, be it a gun or a vehice can "
kill " anything. However the * object* in the hands or under the control of
an irresponsible person is another matter entirely.
Sara
Frank Walton
....................
Frank
Josh Turner
"Scott M. Hayes" wrote:
>
> To Kevin and Frank:
>
> #1 Do you own a 1999 Ford Cobra?
No.
> #2 Do you understand how any lawsuit works?
Yes.
> I in fact do own a 1999 Cobra that is low on the horsepower, has rear end
> clunks, severe driveline backlash, poor fitting interior and exterior panels,
> paint blemishes from the factory and mild vibration problems. Everyone knows
> that the 1999 Cobra's have a tarnished name.
Everyone on the internet, anyway.
> Resale value is down.
How much? Can you quantify it? If you determine a number, can you
attribute how much of that number is due to the loss of horsepower? Or
the driveline clunk? If you compare the value of a 99 Cobra to a 98
Cobra circa one year ago, can you say by a preponderance of the evidence
that the loss in resale value is caused by any specific design problems,
or might it be caused by general hesitancy on the part of buyers to
accept a new design (something that Ford can do nothing about)? How much
of it might be due to the fact that the GT is now substantially closer
in performance to the Cobra in performance, even when the Cobra is
making the "correct" horsepower? How much of it might be due to the fact
that the Cobra's IRS is not as well-suited to dragstrip use as the
live-axle (something that you and everyone else knew about the Cobra
before it came out)? Or to the fact that the FD gears can't be swapped
out as easily? Perhaps most importantly, does Ford owe you a duty to
provide you a car with a given resale value? Tough questions, and if I
can think of them I bet Ford's attorneys can, too.
> The cars
> in the shop. There's a void in my bank account and I'm driving around in a
> loaner Contour. Ford has said that a fix is on the way for the HP but they
> refuse to say when. I've had the car since April. How long is it going to
> take for my car to get to the condition it was supposed be in when it left the factory?
Good question. You have every right to be dissatisfied and pissed off.
You might not have legally cognizable damages, though. Even if you do,
ask yourself this question: What is the lawsuit going to accomplish,
realistically? *If* the class is certified and wins the suit (because
Ford won't settle), what are you going to get? A $500 gift-certificate
toward the purchase of a new Cobra? Is that going to satisfy you? What
if Ford decides, "screw it, these guys want to play hardball, we're
going to cease work on the fix." Is that a better outcome?
> This lawyer, Scott McKay, operates just like any other lawyer. He's not going
> to get into a lawsuit where he doesn't think he stands to gain money. A class
> action lawsuit involves all of the 1999 Cobra owners who purchased their car
> before a certain time. They don't have to seek out personal legal attention.
> It's not going to cost every owner thousands of dollars. If the suit is
> awarded in favor of Mr. McKay and the '99 owners, Mr. McKay takes his cut to
> cover his costs and profit and the '99 owners benefit in whatever manner was
> decided in court.
And that manner will almost certainly leave a bad taste in everyone's
mouth, except his. You can justify class-actions on deterrence grounds,
but in a case like this its almost impossible to justify them on
compensation grounds. The damages are just too small and ethereal.
> Nothing is likely to come out of this class action deal anyway.
Nothing good, certainly, from the owners' perspectives.
> Ford needs to
> communicate a bit better than they are.
In what way? From what I've heard, they've taken rapid steps to address
the HP problem, and they've kept the owners pretty well updated. You
don't just churn out 5300 intake manifolds and exhaust systems
overnight, especially with a niche vehicle like the Cobra.
I appreciate the frustration that the Cobra owners are experiencing. If
I'd paid that kind of money for a car, and had the kinds of problems
that you guys are experiencing, I'd be hopping mad, too. But I also
understand that lawsuits are means of last resort. They are only really
an option once all communication has broken down and all other routes
toward settlement are exhausted, because once they're instituted,
amicable relations between the parties are nearly impossible. As a
result, before anyone files a lawsuit, they should be damn sure that the
suit is a) able to help them at all, and b) able to do a better job than
they could on their own.
In this case, Ford is taking action to resolve the complaint. They have
a PR nightmare on their hands, and it behooves them to resolve it as
rapidly as possible. What additional value does a lawsuit add? Will Ford
work faster once a suit is instituted? I doubt it. Moreover, there is a
strong possibility that a suit will merely cause them to circle the
wagons and actually reduce the amount of time/effort/expense that
they're putting in to the fix--after all, if they face the threat of
paying damages anyway, why bother correcting the problem? Shelling out a
few thousand $500 coupons to owners who probably won't use them anyway
might be a more attractive option than paying for the fix, especially
since a class action forecloses the possibility of additional suits down
the road.
Personally, if I owned a Cobra I'd send a nasty letter to Scott McKay,
telling him to back it down a notch and not rile the waters. If Ford
fails to address the problem completely, then maybe lawyers are called
for. But it only makes sense to at least give the company a chance.
Josh Turner
Marc Warden wrote:
>
> I've read the Cobra IRS design was done by a Ford engineer working at his
> kitchen table. Can't be too much R&D there...
>
> I would wager the profit margin on the Cobra, even the '99, is very high,
> probably one of the highest of all the cars (not counting trucks) Ford
> sells.
How do you figure?
> Sincerely,
>
> MarcW.
>
> Franklin Edward Sadler wrote in message <7sgj0k$7...@catapult.gatech.edu>...
Frank Walton
other lawyer.
....................
Well, now you're getting smart, at last.
Frank
Xx Sdrawkcab daeR xX
<may...@ptdprolog.net> writes:
Hahaha....this coming from the genius who brought us " Anything that bleeds for
5 days can't be any good. " I'll let your own comments stand as testement to *
your * depth of thought Frank. And anytime you'd like to compare SAT scores
you let me know ya hear? ;-)))
Sara [ who on slow days really does enjoy pushing Franks buttons! :-O ]
Marc Warden
kitchen table. Can't be too much R&D there...
I would wager the profit margin on the Cobra, even the '99, is very high,
probably one of the highest of all the cars (not counting trucks) Ford
sells.
Sincerely,
Frank Walton
....................
In my position, I am accustomed to being misquoted.
It is; 'Anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't
Die, CAN'T be a GOOD thing.' Perhaps we will meet at
the next Mensa meeting.
Frank
Xx Sdrawkcab daeR xX
<may...@ptdprolog.net> writes:
>" Anything that bleeds for 5 days can't be any good. "
>
>....................
>
>In my position, I am accustomed to being misquoted.
You 're also misinformed but that's another thread.
>It is; 'Anything that bleeds for 5 days and doesn't
>Die, CAN'T be a GOOD thing.'
I'm glad you archieved it. I couldn't be bothered with such tripe.
> Perhaps we will meet at the next Mensa meeting.
>Frank
I tend to doubt it Frank, I tend to doubt it. LOL!! Got them SAT scores
handy? ;-)))
Sara
Art Beggs & son
<marc....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I've read the Cobra IRS design was done by a Ford engineer working at his
>kitchen table. Can't be too much R&D there...
You don't know much about engineering design, test and production
criteria, do you?