Getting mileage out of the MAzda alliance

[elkarlo]

I think that outside of some product development and some parts bin sharing that Ford should do some more with Mazda, as it cuts costs for both companies.

Why not have Mazda go in with a stake in the Hermasillo plant? Making it much like AAI, where they could produce the Mazda 2 along side the Fiesta. Which would cushion the cost of the changing the machinary.

While in exchange Ford could use Mazda's factoeries in Japan to make the Fiesta, either as a Mazda, or as a Ford.

If Ford let Mazda use the Fiesta, then Mazda could use the development costs to make other cars, and of course some of those savings would trickle down to Ford.

 

 

I think that Ford has gone a long way with merging FNA with FoE, and perhaps FoA will be included in as well. After that I think Mazda should be put into the fold some more. Any thoughts?

 

 

I also see Ford upping it's stake eventually.

[rkisler]

I think that outside of some product development and some parts bin sharing that Ford should do some more with Mazda, as it cuts costs for both companies.

Why not have Mazda go in with a stake in the Hermasillo plant? Making it much like AAI, where they could produce the Mazda 2 along side the Fiesta. Which would cushion the cost of the changing the machinary.

While in exchange Ford could use Mazda's factoeries in Japan to make the Fiesta, either as a Mazda, or as a Ford.

If Ford let Mazda use the Fiesta, then Mazda could use the development costs to make other cars, and of course some of those savings would trickle down to Ford.

 

 

I think that Ford has gone a long way with merging FNA with FoE, and perhaps FoA will be included in as well. After that I think Mazda should be put into the fold some more. Any thoughts?

 

 

I also see Ford upping it's stake eventually.

 

Well, for many years Ford worked with Mazda on a number of projects in North America and around the world. And the principle was to share development costs, share component design and manufacturing, and in some cases to share final assembly. For many years, there were Ford badged cars coming out of Mazda plants in Japan.

 

The Fiesta is a Mazda 2 derivative (as a correction, it will be produced in a new Integrated Stamping and Assembly plant in Cuatitlan, not Hermosillo). As far as I know, Mazda does not intend to sell the Mazda 2 in the U.S.. Also as far as I know, even though there were likely discussions, Mazda does not intend to join with Ford at Cuatitlan to produce the M2 there.

 

I think over the next few product cycles, we are going to be seeing less cooperation with Mazda, not more. Ford, it seems, wants to get its house in order by promoting "internal" commonality and economies of scale. That is evident in the plan to pull together FoE and FNA product. And that means that Mazda is less of a joint partner in the creation of those platforms and products. According to some, when Ford reduced Mazda equity, a lot of doors that had taken years to pry open were suddenly shut.

 

Mazda has a personality and the relationship with Ford has always been kind of schizo. At times, they recognized they really needed Ford to stay in business. But they are a proud, Japanese company and didn't like the oversight (nor would you if you worked there). One one hand, they wanted to make their products have more personality, but on the other, jumping in with big volume Ford helped them get economies of scale. You get it....

 

It will be interesting to watch Mazda. I think we can expect some interesting products, but, on the other hand, they are going to have a very difficult time making it on their own. There is still a lot of sharing with Ford on powertrains and some on platforms. Ford has basically put Mazda in "free agency"; a company that very badly needs to improve fuel economy (like, say, BMW or Mercedes) could be on the prowl to buy them. Or maybe if Ford gets its FoA/FNA act together to the satisfaction of Mullaly, Ford could up the equity again if there is positive cash flow. Who knows at this point?

 

From my perspective, I think reducing Mazda equity and giving them the backhand was one of the worst actions Ford has taken recently.

[theoldwizard]

I think that Ford has gone a long way with merging FNA with FoE, and perhaps FoA will be included in as well. After that I think Mazda should be put into the fold some more. Any thoughts?

Obviously you do not understand much about doing business in Japan.

 

First, Ford sold off a chunk of Mazda so they own a lot less (down to 13% from 33% IIRC).

 

Second and more important, unless you own a majority of a Japanese company (and the Japanese government does not allow foreign companies a majority position in any company), you don't tell them how to do anything. Back in the 80s and 90s Ford tried to sell Mazda EFI systems (prior to Visteon spin off). What a waste of time and energy. Even though the Ford system was probably better and cheaper, it would have devastated their supplier (some small company, I can't remember). It was more important to keep them around.

 

I also see Ford upping it's stake eventually.

Eventually is a long time. Without Volvo, perhaps they will re-evaluate Mazda as a source for future platforms.

[elkarlo]

Well, for many years Ford worked with Mazda on a number of projects in North America and around the world. And the principle was to share development costs, share component design and manufacturing, and in some cases to share final assembly. For many years, there were Ford badged cars coming out of Mazda plants in Japan.

 

The Fiesta is a Mazda 2 derivative (as a correction, it will be produced in a new Integrated Stamping and Assembly plant in Cuatitlan, not Hermosillo). As far as I know, Mazda does not intend to sell the Mazda 2 in the U.S.. Also as far as I know, even though there were likely discussions, Mazda does not intend to join with Ford at Cuatitlan to produce the M2 there.

 

I think over the next few product cycles, we are going to be seeing less cooperation with Mazda, not more. Ford, it seems, wants to get its house in order by promoting "internal" commonality and economies of scale. That is evident in the plan to pull together FoE and FNA product. And that means that Mazda is less of a joint partner in the creation of those platforms and products. According to some, when Ford reduced Mazda equity, a lot of doors that had taken years to pry open were suddenly shut.

 

Mazda has a personality and the relationship with Ford has always been kind of schizo. At times, they recognized they really needed Ford to stay in business. But they are a proud, Japanese company and didn't like the oversight (nor would you if you worked there). One one hand, they wanted to make their products have more personality, but on the other, jumping in with big volume Ford helped them get economies of scale. You get it....

 

It will be interesting to watch Mazda. I think we can expect some interesting products, but, on the other hand, they are going to have a very difficult time making it on their own. There is still a lot of sharing with Ford on powertrains and some on platforms. Ford has basically put Mazda in "free agency"; a company that very badly needs to improve fuel economy (like, say, BMW or Mercedes) could be on the prowl to buy them. Or maybe if Ford gets its FoA/FNA act together to the satisfaction of Mullaly, Ford could up the equity again if there is positive cash flow. Who knows at this point?

 

From my perspective, I think reducing Mazda equity and giving them the backhand was one of the worst actions Ford has taken recently.

 

I don't see why they don't sell the 2 in America, it's a new segement and they should get in on it.

 

I'm in Japan now, and I do see some Fords, mostly Oz and some Mustangs and Escapes. But the days of rebranded cars are over here. I like the MAzda style over here, as most Japanese cars look like they are from the 90's or so. Which makes Mazda stand out. Though their market share is pretty small here.

 

I agree with you, and I think you have some great insights. Mazda wants to do it's own thing, like developing the CX-7 on it's own. But it needs Ford's parts bin to get parts and what not at a reasonable price.

 

Can BMW or anybody buy Mazda while Ford has a stake? I think that is kinda scary as another company can get Ford's tech/patents via a stake in MAzda. Or Toyota can gobble up another Japanese company.

 

I also agree that selling off the stake in Mazda and the subsequent treatment of Mazda was a pretty poor idea.

[elkarlo]

Obviously you do not understand much about doing business in Japan.

 

First, Ford sold off a chunk of Mazda so they own a lot less (down to 13% from 33% IIRC).

 

Second and more important, unless you own a majority of a Japanese company (and the Japanese government does not allow foreign companies a majority position in any company), you don't tell them how to do anything. Back in the 80s and 90s Ford tried to sell Mazda EFI systems (prior to Visteon spin off). What a waste of time and energy. Even though the Ford system was probably better and cheaper, it would have devastated their supplier (some small company, I can't remember). It was more important to keep them around.

 

 

Eventually is a long time. Without Volvo, perhaps they will re-evaluate Mazda as a source for future platforms.

 

 

Does anybody? I have no idea how anything works here. But that's for a different tale.

 

By put into the fold, I mean more product, and research sharing, not outright ownership. Which of course is illegal here.

 

Yes I forgot to make that point. Without Volvo, I think Ford needs an outside voice for some of their cars. Or at least make sure Mazda is in on the designs, as they do have an interesting personality. Plus they both need to stay on top of the safety deal now that Volvo is on the way out.

[ausrutherford]

Ford was going to give mazda one of their old plants before the recession hit so its on hold now.

[NickF1011]

Why not have Mazda go in with a stake in the Hermasillo plant? Making it much like AAI, where they could produce the Mazda 2 along side the Fiesta.

 

Cuautitlan, not Hermosillo. Hermosillo builds the Fusion/Milan/MKZ.

[RichardJensen]

Re 'Japanese gov't doesn't allow any foreign ownership'

 

That's an overly broad statement.

 

There are a great many firms that may not be majority owned by foreign companies, but it's by no means a law that NO business may be foreign owned.

 

Merely all businesses in these sectors:

 

weapons, aerospace, nuclear energy, agriculture, fisheries, mining, electric utilities, communication and passenger transportation

 

http://asia.legalbusinessonline.com/firm-p...-the-rise/32015

 

Just a correction...... The list of restricted industries is huge, but not all-encompassing.

 

----

 

Re: Mazda

 

Mazda sells c. 1M units a year, globally. That's not enough.

 

But the problem they face is that the C1 development model is dead. The way Ford developed both C1 & B2(?)--the current Fiesta/Mazda2 was in many ways ideally suited to Ford's relationship with Mazda. Both development structures were fairly loose almost 'ad hoc'

 

The current structure which is necessarily more centralized puts Mazda in almost a 'take it or leave it' position vis a vis new products and platforms. That may be a tough pill for Mazda engineers to swallow--but their global volumes aren't sufficient to keep their own products up to date.

 

Any MB or BMW buying Mazda for, essentially, CO2 credit, would be faced with the same problem--insufficient revenue to fund further development.

Edited July 2, 2009 by RichardJensen

[theoldwizard]

Mazda wants to do it's own thing, like developing the CX-7 on it's own. But it needs Ford's parts bin to get parts and what not at a reasonable price.

That last statement is not correct, especially if the vehicle is assembled in Japan.

 

Can BMW or anybody buy Mazda while Ford has a stake?

Technically, yes, but that would be illogical.

[theoldwizard]

Re 'Japanese gov't doesn't allow any foreign ownership'

 

That's an overly broad statement.

 

There are a great many firms that may not be majority owned by foreign companies, but it's by no means a law that NO business may be foreign owned.

Yes, technically you are correct.

 

But many things that are not "laws" will never happen any way in Japan.

[jpd80]

I sense the relationship between Mazda and Ford (particularly FoA) has grown even more icy

since the Mazda sell down by Ford. Mazda engineers were always a bit stoic but more so these

days and only providing assistance when instructed to do so by head office. They now view Ford

as a competitor and were less than amused at missing out on the T6 contract.

Edited July 2, 2009 by jpd80

[rkisler]

I sense the relationship between Mazda and Ford (particularly FoA) has grown even more icy

since the Mazda sell down by Ford. Mazda engineers were always a bit stoic but more so these

days and only providing assistance when instructed to do so by head office. They now view Ford

as a competitor and were less than amused at missing out on the T6 contract.

 

The same thing is happening in NA as I mentioned in my post, according to a couple of people I spoke with. Everything turned icy after the equity sale.

 

Just so everyone knows, Mazda has for at least 10 years had representatives in Dearborn to help construct worldwide cycle plans. No secrets. Just a total forward model plan across all of Ford and Mazda so the products could be better coordinated. I'm not sure where that stands, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not happening now.

 

The point Richard made is key. It doesn't seem like there will be C1 cooperative projects, but more "take it or leave it" from big, bad Ford. Mazda has already gone their own way on C/D. And we'll see what happens to C cars -- will they stay with FoE/FNA lock step, or start to back away? Will Ford stay with Mazda on the B? Or will they feel they have to bring it "in house"? Lots of challenges and difficult conversations.

[ausrutherford]

One thing about the cooperation between the two, Ford still makes the decisions for mazda for their largest shareholder is a bank who lets them for they dont know how to run a car company.

[elkarlo]

Re 'Japanese gov't doesn't allow any foreign ownership'

 

That's an overly broad statement.

 

There are a great many firms that may not be majority owned by foreign companies, but it's by no means a law that NO business may be foreign owned.

 

Merely all businesses in these sectors:

 

weapons, aerospace, nuclear energy, agriculture, fisheries, mining, electric utilities, communication and passenger transportation

 

http://asia.legalbusinessonline.com/firm-p...-the-rise/32015

 

Just a correction...... The list of restricted industries is huge, but not all-encompassing.

 

----

 

Re: Mazda

 

Mazda sells c. 1M units a year, globally. That's not enough.

 

But the problem they face is that the C1 development model is dead. The way Ford developed both C1 & B2(?)--the current Fiesta/Mazda2 was in many ways ideally suited to Ford's relationship with Mazda. Both development structures were fairly loose almost 'ad hoc'

 

The current structure which is necessarily more centralized puts Mazda in almost a 'take it or leave it' position vis a vis new products and platforms. That may be a tough pill for Mazda engineers to swallow--but their global volumes aren't sufficient to keep their own products up to date.

 

Any MB or BMW buying Mazda for, essentially, CO2 credit, would be faced with the same problem--insufficient revenue to fund further development.

 

Well a lot of things go over in Japan, because that's the way it is. You know it's easier for me to get divorced here than it is for me to get a rental card. Plus there is a lot of underhandedness and backdoor deals. The govt here is bailing out the Electronics companies here by buying TVs for all the schools.

 

As for Mazda, I think you are right, at around 1m or so units, they just don't have the volume to survive on their own. I have no idea how Mitsubishi is still alive. They both overall have about the same amount of volume.

With the new C1 development can Mazda walk away from it? Can they develop their own platforms? I ask this as I am not sure how much they do on their own. I think the CX-7/9 is based a lot on their shared platforms, and engines.

 

MB and BMW I think if they did put a stake in Mazda could fund some development.

 

Oh and I think Mazda should bring over the Bongo and or the Titan, rebadge them as Fords. Much like the TranCon is coming here. Some small work trucks could help Ford's lineup out.

[elkarlo]

That last statement is not correct, especially if the vehicle is assembled in Japan.

 

 

Technically, yes, but that would be illogical.

 

But most of Mazda's production is in Japan. The CX-& I think uses rebored Ford engine. So in some way Mazda does benefit from using Ford's parts bin.

 

 

I am not sure of the ramifications of such a purchase, but what if it happened? Could they get access to Ford's tech via Mazda? Just wondering what shady stuff they could do.

[elkarlo]

The same thing is happening in NA as I mentioned in my post, according to a couple of people I spoke with. Everything turned icy after the equity sale.

 

Just so everyone knows, Mazda has for at least 10 years had representatives in Dearborn to help construct worldwide cycle plans. No secrets. Just a total forward model plan across all of Ford and Mazda so the products could be better coordinated. I'm not sure where that stands, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not happening now.

 

The point Richard made is key. It doesn't seem like there will be C1 cooperative projects, but more "take it or leave it" from big, bad Ford. Mazda has already gone their own way on C/D. And we'll see what happens to C cars -- will they stay with FoE/FNA lock step, or start to back away? Will Ford stay with Mazda on the B? Or will they feel they have to bring it "in house"? Lots of challenges and difficult conversations.

 

 

I think Mullay should address this next. Having Mazda go from ally to competitor is just not good business.

 

So Ford is going to make platforms and will tell Mazda take it, or build your own?

[RichardJensen]

MB and BMW I think if they did put a stake in Mazda could fund some development.

As a one time deal that would work. But long term, Mazda needs its platforms to pay for themselves, and at current volume, they don't.

 

What were once capable entries will slip farther and farther back.

 

You're seeing it happen right now with Mitsubishi & Chrysler, it happened in the luxury sector with Jaguar--and as the product becomes less competitive, the demand slackens even more creating a sort of death spiral.

 

Chrysler & MB was a similar deal. There was no way for Chrysler to benefit from Mercedes' volume, and Mercedes didn't want to invest in Chrysler products that needed investment.

[elkarlo]

As a one time deal that would work. But long term, Mazda needs its platforms to pay for themselves, and at current volume, they don't.

 

What were once capable entries will slip farther and farther back.

 

You're seeing it happen right now with Mitsubishi & Chrysler, it happened in the luxury sector with Jaguar--and as the product becomes less competitive, the demand slackens even more creating a sort of death spiral.

 

Chrysler & MB was a similar deal. There was no way for Chrysler to benefit from Mercedes' volume, and Mercedes didn't want to invest in Chrysler products that needed investment.

 

 

Well, I think that you are right. Mazda can't afford to go the Mitsu route. Where the just use a few platforms, and rely on a Halo car. Even here in Japan Mitsu is seen as junky. Talked to a Mitsu office worker, who worked for the electronic section, and he said he didn't like Mitsu cars either. Here they have the tiny Kei cars, and some trucks, outside of that they really don't have much. I think Mazda has too be mindful of this, but also Ford should not force them either.

 

I thought Jag used the Taurus frame? But regardless 60k units a year is not enough to pay for a lot of the design costs.

 

My little bro was a Chrysler mech until recently. He said that Mercedes used Chry to dump their parts on. There were the ones who bought the Oldsmobile truck lids right? Well they forced Chry to design their already poorly designed cars around Mercdes excess parts. Which made Chry Chry fall behind in the design sector. As after MB walked away frm them hey had double the problems that they had in 1997.

 

I also agree that MB didn't want to invest, they forced terrible rebrandings on Chry like the Crossfire, which are still on some dealers lots, right now. Of course Ford doesn't do this, which is why they have one of the few good relationships in all the car world.

 

Oh and speaking of Ford holding Mazda while another company does too, that is the current situation with Chry, Fiat and MB have stakes.

[Harley Lover]

But most of Mazda's production is in Japan. The CX-& I think uses rebored Ford engine. So in some way Mazda does benefit from using Ford's parts bin.

The CX-7 uses the Mazdaspeed3/6 4 cylinder DI turbo. The CX-9 uses the Ford corporate V6 unaltered. I think the CX-9 eventually gets the 3.7 version of that engine.

[Blue II]

Mazda has always been a difficult partner. Auto Alliance is not always accessable to some company employees who actually need to be there. Most just chalk it up to a cultural difference. Hiroshima was just not the player it should have been when Ford had controlling interest.

[rkisler]

Mazda has always been a difficult partner. Auto Alliance is not always accessable to some company employees who actually need to be there. Most just chalk it up to a cultural difference. Hiroshima was just not the player it should have been when Ford had controlling interest.

 

Sorry, I don't agree fully with your comments.

 

It is true there are cultural differences and curtains. But those barriers go down if you work with them over time to gain their trust and, more importantly in the Japanese culture, go out with them in the evening. That's when most of the agreements are ironed out.

 

I think Mazda gave much more than it got, particularly considering its very small size relative to Ford. Think about it for a minute:

1. 4 cylinder engine design (although it could be argued it's not best in the business, it's a hell of a lot better than Ford was capable of)

2. Platform design for the Mazda2/Ford Fiesta

3. Platform design for the CD3 (Fusion/Milan/MKZ)

4. Platform design for the CD3s (Edge/MKX)

5. Japanese-style plant processing for Hermosillo and AAI

6. Mazda product development process formed the basis for worldwide Ford Product Development System (FPDS)

7. Allowed Ford to have a brand that was actually considered by those who consider only imports where Ford gets no consideration.

 

And I'm not including Mazda's past contributions of transmissions and previous platforms.

 

Ford NA showed it had no capability to do a lot of the above. Those products mentioned above have kept Ford in business over the last few years.

[J-150]

Sorry, I don't agree fully with your comments.

 

It is true there are cultural differences and curtains. But those barriers go down if you work with them over time to gain their trust and, more importantly in the Japanese culture, go out with them in the evening. That's when most of the agreements are ironed out.

 

I think Mazda gave much more than it got, particularly considering its very small size relative to Ford. Think about it for a minute:

1. 4 cylinder engine design (although it could be argued it's not best in the business, it's a hell of a lot better than Ford was capable of)

2. Platform design for the Mazda2/Ford Fiesta

3. Platform design for the CD3 (Fusion/Milan/MKZ)

4. Platform design for the CD3s (Edge/MKX)

5. Japanese-style plant processing for Hermosillo and AAI

6. Mazda product development process formed the basis for worldwide Ford Product Development System (FPDS)

7. Allowed Ford to have a brand that was actually considered by those who consider only imports where Ford gets no consideration.

 

And I'm not including Mazda's past contributions of transmissions and previous platforms.

 

Ford NA showed it had no capability to do a lot of the above. Those products mentioned above have kept Ford in business over the last few years.

 

 

all the same arguments when Chrysler bought AMC.

 

it's a fact of life. Big fish swallow small fish to get the entrepreeurial brains from the small fish to make changes at the big fish.

 

But rhe one key thing you are missing in the give-take equation is existence. Wanna know how Ford got 33% in the first place? Mazda was on its death bed. They would have been bankrupt years ago without Ford.

 

So yes, they gave Ford a lot of intellectual stuff, but Ford allowed them to continue living.

[theoldwizard]

But most of Mazda's production is in Japan. The CX-& I think uses rebored Ford engine. So in some way Mazda does benefit from using Ford's parts bin.

IIRC, you have it backwards !

 

All of the Ford and Mazda Duratec I4 engines from 2.0L(?) through 2.5L are based the Mazda MZR Engine. This engine is actually built in like 6 different countries around the world.

 

Any V6 engines sold by Mazda in the US are Ford design.

[rkisler]

all the same arguments when Chrysler bought AMC.

 

it's a fact of life. Big fish swallow small fish to get the entrepreeurial brains from the small fish to make changes at the big fish.

 

But rhe one key thing you are missing in the give-take equation is existence. Wanna know how Ford got 33% in the first place? Mazda was on its death bed. They would have been bankrupt years ago without Ford.

 

So yes, they gave Ford a lot of intellectual stuff, but Ford allowed them to continue living.

 

Ugh! The analogy of Mazda with AMC is about the worst I have ever seen.

 

And, yes, I have a very clear understanding of Mazda and their history. Many late night and early morning teleconferences. Many, many 12-hour flights and 20-hour door-to-door trips. Let me give it to you and others very briefly:

 

1. Ford had land in Yokohama that used to be a Model T and Model A plant. Ford sold land.

2. In the 1970's, Mazda was in trouble due, in part, to the bad fuel economy reputation of rotaries on which Mazda had based a fairly large part of their business (first oil shock for those of us that remember)

3. Unlike some of the other manufacturers in Japan, Mazda is not really part of a keiretsu, or a group of associated companies usually with a bank in the center. Mazda was supported, however, by Sumitomo Bank.

4. Ford, working with Sumitomo, purchased an equity share in Mazda (initially 7%) using the proceeds from the Yokahama sale. At the time, this really helped as getting capital out of Japan was tough.

5. Ford helped Mazda with financial support. Every time Mazda floated convertible notes, Ford had to take part or dilute their stake.

6. Some of the early cooperation involved Asia Pacific and Rest of World (ROW) markets. Asia Pacific was getting expensive, crap product from Europe. Ford and Mazda joined together to make Ford differentiated product that was produced in Japan, and sent as KD kits to markets around the world for local assembly. Those same products were sold in Japan under the Autorama dealership which provided Ford a small foothold in Japan.

7. During the 1980's, Mazda tried their best to break away from Ford's ever-increasing equity (this is my take). They developed a large variety of derivatives, and tried to market in Japan through 5 separate brand names, and tried also to develop a luxury franchise for the U.S. This attempt failed, and put them in worse shape than before requiring, you guessed it, more Ford help.

8. Ford has always had a close association with Sumitomo Bank. The Bank knows they don't want to run Mazda and has used Ford as a trusted surrogate. Even during the latest dump of shares, Sumitomo found a safe home for the shares and if Ford wanted back in, I'm sure the shares would magically be available.

9. I still maintain that over the years, Ford has received a huge return for its investment, particularly due to the fact that Mazda more efficiently engineers than Ford.

10. To list the trades back and forth would take too long, but in general Mazda has engineered powertrains and platforms for Ford. In turn, Ford has helped Mazda share its development costs over a much wider volume base. In terms of technology from Ford to Mazda, there is some -- Mazda finds it financially attractive to use the 3.7 V6 from Ford and manufacture it locally rather than developing their own V6. Mazda benefited from C1 development sharing; they still have the best c-car in NA with the Mazda 3. And Mazda has used differentiated Ford products like the Tribute on occasion. But the technology coming from Mazda has far, far outweighed that going to Mazda which, considering its size, is astounding.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Austin

[J-150]

Ugh! The analogy of Mazda with AMC is about the worst I have ever seen.

 

...

 

 

excellent history.

 

thanks for sharing.

 

but it still confirms that without Ford, Mazda would have died long ago.

 

So even with the work Mazda did for Ford, its work that would not have been done at all had Ford sold them long ago and allowed them to die.

 

So it's really a symbiotic relationship. Mazda brings the entrepreneurial thinking. Ford brings the cash and clout to allow Mazda to be entrepreneurial.