Future Ford vehicles will repossess themselves

[djevox]

FoMoCo Repo: Ford Patents System for Self-Repossessing Vehicles


I’ll leave my personal thoughts out for now, but this is ridiculous.

 

[silver billet]

Doesn't the future look fun?

 

[jimothy]

I had a Ford Fusion with Microsoft Sync. I’m pretty certain that system was possessed.

 

[Eighty]

While I have a big disdain for losing control over a vehicle that I own, I'm on the fence with this one. If there's ever a valid reason for you to NOT have control over "your" vehicle, it would be when it's not really yours (yet), and you fail to pay the entity that does own it (the bank). In that case, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[jimothy]

While I have a big disdain for losing control over a vehicle that I own, I'm on the fence with this one. If there's ever a valid reason for you to NOT have control over "your" vehicle, it would be when it's not really yours (yet), and you fail to pay the entity that does own it (the bank). In that case, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Good point. The easier it is for lenders to repossess vehicles from deadbeats, the lower rates should be for those that do pay their bills.

It’s still a little creepy, though.

 

[silver billet]

While I have a big disdain for losing control over a vehicle that I own, I'm on the fence with this one. If there's ever a valid reason for you to NOT have control over "your" vehicle, it would be when it's not really yours (yet), and you fail to pay the entity that does own it (the bank). In that case, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Well it certainly opens new possibilities for thieves as well.

Not to mention possibilities for government overreach and "temporary car lockdowns for your safety or the safety of the country" etc.

 

[Eighty]

Well it certainly opens new possibilities for thieves as well.

Not to mention possibilities for government overreach and "temporary car lockdowns for your safety or the safety of the country" etc.

Yeah, good points. Of course, they could probably lock our cars down already if they really wanted to. If your truck can surreptitiously send its vital statistics and receive OTA updates, then it can certainly receive a kill signal.

 

[jkm312]

I can get behind the idea of a kill switch in the case of delinquent loan payments as a last resort. I do not like the idea of driverless cars, never have.

 

[silver billet]

For delinquent loans, maybe we need to reduce the reason there are so many of them instead of adding features that make it easier to repossess?

Require a minimum of 50% down and finance the rest at no more than 4 years ... or some variation of that, and maybe even stricter rules for more expensive cars/trucks where you're obviously spending on "wants" and not "needs". Seems more likely to help the entire economy with that approach as having the entire country living cheque to cheque can't be healthy.

 

[Eighty]

For delinquent loans, maybe we need to reduce the reason there are so many of them instead of adding features that make it easier to repossess?

Require a minimum of 50% down and finance the rest at no more than 4 years ... or some variation of that, and maybe even stricter rules for more expensive cars/trucks where you're obviously spending on "wants" and not "needs". Seems more likely to help the entire economy with that approach as having the entire country living cheque to cheque can't be healthy.

Or we could let people finance all they want with no restrictions. Then introduce a loan forgiveness plan that is paid by the taxpayers.

 

[Rock Crawler]

For delinquent loans, maybe we need to reduce the reason there are so many of them instead of adding features that make it easier to repossess?

Require a minimum of 50% down and finance the rest at no more than 4 years ... or some variation of that, and maybe even stricter rules for more expensive cars/trucks where you're obviously spending on "wants" and not "needs". Seems more likely to help the entire economy with that approach as having the entire country living cheque to cheque can't be healthy.

Seems like a successful way to punish everyone as opposed to those who are negligent. But, I’d say that if someone cannot afford it, and the loan companies see this in the application, they should just say NO. The fault is mostly due to the loan companies trying to get that contract signed, no matter what.

I always found it quite disgusting that those who cannot afford a home, vehicle etc. to act like a victim and then expect everyone else to bail them out. If you cannot afford it to begin with, don’t buy it. If you can no longer afford it, give it up because you don’t own it. It’s not yours. I’m not saying that if you fall on hard times, not to find creative ways to not loose something as important as your home, but don’t act like a victim and then expect the rest of us to pay for it. I cannot stand the “bail-out culture” that is running rampant these days.

 

[djevox]

I see it being abused by various entities. “We don’t like when you superimposed the Goonies Sloth head on Fetterman’s body on Twitter, so we’re locking access to your car.” That’s a crazy theory that I hope never happens.

 

[mikeru82]

Seems like a successful way to punish everyone as opposed to those who are negligent. But, I’d say that if someone cannot afford it, and the loan companies see this in the application, they should just say NO. The fault is mostly due to the loan companies trying to get that contract signed, no matter what.

I always found it quite disgusting that those who cannot afford a home, vehicle etc. to act like a victim and then expect everyone else to bail them out. If you cannot afford it to begin with, don’t buy it. If you can no longer afford it, give it up because you don’t own it. It’s not yours. I’m not saying that if you fall on hard times, not to find creative ways to not loose something as important as your home, but don’t act like a victim and then expect the rest of us to pay for it. I cannot stand the “bail-out culture” that is running rampant these days.

Well said. Those who supply the loans need to do a better job of not approving those who don't have the means to pay it off.

For delinquent loans, maybe we need to reduce the reason there are so many of them instead of adding features that make it easier to repossess?

Require a minimum of 50% down and finance the rest at no more than 4 years ... or some variation of that, and maybe even stricter rules for more expensive cars/trucks where you're obviously spending on "wants" and not "needs". Seems more likely to help the entire economy with that approach as having the entire country living cheque to cheque can't be healthy.

To suggest a 50% down payment is unrealistic for all but the very well-to-do. I've rarely done more than 10%, and sometimes way less than that. But I've never had a problem paying a car loan off. The vast majority of car buyers would be prevented from purchasing a vehicle if that were the required down payment. There's no way the car makers would survive that.

 

[Dewey]

If Ford vehicles could tow themselves to the repair shop……well then we’d have a winner.

Sorry just some anti-Ford humor

 

[silver billet]

Well said. Those who supply the loans need to do a better job of not approving those who don't have the means to pay it off.


To suggest a 50% down payment is unrealistic for all but the very well-to-do. I've rarely done more than 10%, and sometimes way less than that. But I've never had a problem paying a car loan off. The vast majority of car buyers would be prevented from purchasing a vehicle if that were the required down payment. There's no way the car makers would survive that.

Well that's one theory. My theory is it would force manufactures to produce cars that people can afford. I'm not "stuck" on the 50%, the idea is recognizing the real problem with car repossessions and fixing two birds with one stone.

Does that mean that some people have to readjust their priorities and sights? Yes. I mean you're driving a limited, and so be it you say you can afford it and I'll believe you. But you don't "need" a limited, you could probably get around just fine in a tradesman, right? If you need a truck for work to tow your trailer or haul stuff in your bed, not only is the tradesman more affordable saving you money, it's also the more capable truck (higher payload and less curb weight = tow heavier trailer than limited).

Many people buy stuff way outside their means, and they end up dragging the entire country down with them. Look at the housing crisis, exact same problem there. Predatory lending and people buying stuff they want instead of need.

You as a single person should have the right to buy what you want, agreed. But as a collective whole, the stupidity and greed of people buying stuff they can't afford affects the entire country. There has to be a better balance here.

Again, not saying "50%" is the only way to do this. If you can find a better way to reign in predatory lending and 8 year loans etc, then hey I'll support that too. But that industry is never going to regulate itself, and people won't reign in their purchases by themselves.

 

[mikeru82]

Well that's one theory. My theory is it would force manufactures to produce cars that people can afford. I'm not "stuck" on the 50%, the idea is recognizing the real problem with car repossessions and fixing two birds with one stone.

Lots of reasons car prices are what they are. Far too many variables to argue here. Suffice it to say that car prices have definitely gotten out of hand.

Does that mean that some people have to readjust their priorities and sights? Yes. I mean you're driving a limited, and so be it you say you can afford it and I'll believe you. But you don't "need" a limited, you could probably get around just fine in a tradesman, right? If you need a truck for work to tow your trailer or haul stuff in your bed, not only is the tradesman more affordable saving you money, it's also the more capable truck (higher payload and less curb weight = tow heavier trailer than limited).

People absolutely should stick to what they can afford. No argument there. But people should also be free to choose what they want to drive (if they can afford it). Sure, I could get along with a Tradesman. In fact, my first ram was a 2015 Tradesman EcoDiesel. But I don't use our truck for hauling or towing so I don't care about payload or towing capacity. We took a look at available options, and decided we wanted things that were standard, or only available in a Limited. We could have afforded afford to buy a TRX with zero down if I really wanted one. The wife was on-board with that. But it's not practical do daily drive one. Plus, they don't come with ramboxes or the MFT. My point is that I want to be the one to make that decision. I don't want someone else making that decision for me.

Many people buy stuff way outside their means, and they end up dragging the entire country down with them. Look at the housing crisis, exact same problem there. Predatory lending and people buying stuff they want instead of need.

You as a single person should have the right to buy what you want, agreed. But as a collective whole, the stupidity and greed of people buying stuff they can't afford affects the entire country. There has to be a better balance here.

Again, not saying "50%" is the only way to do this. If you can find a better way to reign in predatory lending and 8 year loans etc, then hey I'll support that too. But that industry is never going to regulate itself, and people won't reign in their purchases by themselves.

There are things dragging this country down, but people buying beyond their means should be the least of them. The ones hurt the most in your scenario should only be the buyer and lender. You say the industry is never going to regulate itself, but I disagree. If left to their own devices, the lenders would learn not to lend to people who can't pay it back, and buyers would be more careful if they suffered the consequences. And if people learn not to buy what they can't afford the prices will stop going up (may even come down). It's pretty self-regulating if government just stays out of it instead of picking winners and losers by bailing out some and not others. Or passing regulations that favor one entity over another.

 

[silver billet]

Lots of reasons car prices are what they are. Far too many variables to argue here. Suffice it to say that car prices have definitely gotten out of hand.


People absolutely should stick to what they can afford. No argument there. But people should also be free to choose what they want to drive (if they can afford it). Sure, I could get along with a Tradesman. In fact, my first ram was a 2015 Tradesman EcoDiesel. But I don't use our truck for hauling or towing so I don't care about payload or towing capacity. We took a look at available options, and decided we wanted things that were standard, or only available in a Limited. We could have afforded afford to buy a TRX with zero down if I really wanted one. The wife was on-board with that. But it's not practical do daily drive one. Plus, they don't come with ramboxes or the MFT. My point is that I want to be the one to make that decision. I don't want someone else making that decision for me.


There are things dragging this country down, but people buying beyond their means should be the least of them. The ones hurt the most in your scenario should only be the buyer and lender. You say the industry is never going to regulate itself, but I disagree. If left to their own devices, the lenders would learn not to lend to people who can't pay it back, and buyers would be more careful if they suffered the consequences. And if people learn not to buy what they can't afford the prices will stop going up (may even come down). It's pretty self-regulating if government just stays out of it instead of picking winners and losers by bailing out some and not others. Or passing regulations that favor one entity over another.

Well I want to avoid making this personal so I'm going to leave your details out. Bottom line is, nobody "needs" a limited, and the hard truth is if one can't afford to pay 50% up front for a new vehicle then that is probably a bad purchase. Would it kill people to "pay" for the truck the old fashioned way by putting money aside for 4 years before actually getting the new truck? I'm not saying you can't take advantage of a loan if you have (say) long term investments making you money etc, but then in those cases you definitely can afford it and the loan is just a financial tool as opposed to financial aid.

There are plenty of good used purchases that can be made at < 50% of the cost of a new one.

We have past history proving your theory wrong. Greedy lenders will do whatever gets them short term profit and watch the world burn without a care in the world. I do agree that picking winners and losers in a bailout is very dangerous and I'm less opinionated on what to do after the apple cart is tipped over. My opinion is we need to regulate lending so that we don't get to that point.

Anyway, we'll disagree on this and I don't want to keep banging on about it either, but lets just say I'm less hopeful than you that when it comes to making money or spending it, that the majority of people on either side will do the right thing. I just have to look at my grand parents generation vs my generation to see how far we've slipped, my grandparents lived through WW2 and split every penny into 4 before doing anything - that's not always healthy either but they survived.

 

[Rock Crawler]

Another thing to consider is that the government mandates certain safety features. These safety features are expensive and increase the price of vehicles. As the average driver gets dumber and more obsessed with other activities besides actually driving the car, more safety features will be mandated. There is nothing manufacturers can do about that.

 

[djevox]

Yep, I think everyone is pointing at the same underlying issue.

 

[Darksteel165]

While I have a big disdain for losing control over a vehicle that I own, I'm on the fence with this one. If there's ever a valid reason for you to NOT have control over "your" vehicle, it would be when it's not really yours (yet), and you fail to pay the entity that does own it (the bank). In that case, you have no one to blame but yourself.

One time Metro PCS shut off my cell phone when I was at work.
I called from my office and they said all I could do was go into a branch as the automated system said they don't provide phone assistance for Metro PCS customers (Only TMobile which owned Metro).

I ended up finding the dealership phone number that stores would call into. I put a bogus store number in and it worked!!!
I was on the phone for another 30 minutes argueing with them as they claimed they never recieved my payment for that 1 month (I send in physical checks from my bank via billpay).
They ended up getting billing on the phone who "found my check under a stack of papers on a desk" and they re-activated my phone right then and there.

With Ford? They would have my payment, I would be a state away, and my truck would shut itself down or drive away on it's own.

If you can't see how that system will be misused and harm the consumer you have too much faith in companies and the government.

This is fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
If someone is not paying their bills the truck turning it off is not at fault, it's the bank that gave them their loan, and the privately owned and operated companies that are requested to repo the vehicle.

Next thing you want to see are subscriptions to drive your truck? Make your payment for the hardware each month, but need to pay $20 a month to use push to start, only $5 a month if you want to use a key. Don't pay for software support? Unable to turn your truck on that you own.