Is Ford Running on Empty?

[RichardJensen]

Rumor has it the most recent news about Ford investing in a plant in Mexico was in fact a leak and inside Ford country, Fields and the rest were going nuts over who leaked that info......

Welll DUH, it was the day before Congressional testimony.

 

And what does this have to do with anything? It involves investment in three extant Ford plants in a country that Ford has been involved in for 85 years.

[2005GTP]

Welll DUH, it was the day before Congressional testimony.

 

And what does this have to do with anything? It involves investment in three extant Ford plants in a country that Ford has been involved in for 85 years.

 

Just another bit of info that describes the chaos going on inside Ford. Until Ford gets rid of the bumbling idiots running the company and starts to put product out there that people want.......they are going to keep losing.....

 

Ford makes me laugh every time they come out with a new product or innovation and try to hype it up in the press when all the other car makers have been using a similar iproduct for years.....satellite radio, DVD navigation, etc. They are ALWAYS late to the game with everything and thats going to cost them. Innovation means being first and being the trend setters and they used to do that. They have that with the f-150. They do pick-ups so well it baffles me as to why they cannot apply that logic to the rest of their lineup.

 

At the end of the day, it makes no difference what we say in this forum. At the end of the day, people are not buying Fords. They are buying Toyotas at double digit gains every month.

[RichardJensen]

Just another bit of info that describes the chaos going on inside Ford.

Yeah. Because one leak means absolute anarchy. I gotcha. I guess I must've skipped the "Making a mountain out of a molehill" section of Over Reaction 101 in college. Thanks for the instructive example that conclusively proves your point. I did take a minor in sarcasm, though. Do you think I'm getting my money's worth?

Edited July 17, 2006 by RichardJensen

[2005GTP]

Yeah. Because one leak means absolute anarchy. I gotcha. I guess I must've skipped the "Making a mountain out of a molehill" section of Over Reaction 101 in college. Thanks for the instructive example that conclusively proves your point. I did take a minor in sarcasm, though. Do you think I'm getting my money's worth?

 

 

Actually you make yourself sound like an idiot......but lets keep the personal attacks out of this and stay on point.

 

From people I know inside Ford, its been described as chaotic. If this is true, than no matter what plan they have for a turn around, its going to be hampered by internal fighting and the struggle for control. Now as a betting man, I say Ford is going to go way down to verge of bankruptcy.

[RichardJensen]

Actually you make yourself sound like an idiot......but lets keep the personal attacks out of this and stay on point.

 

From people I know inside Ford, its been described as chaotic. If this is true, than no matter what plan they have for a turn around, its going to be hampered by internal fighting and the struggle for control. Now as a betting man, I say Ford is going to go way down to verge of bankruptcy.

Hmm. I guess I saw myself as more of a jerk.

 

As far as chaos goes, I guess that may well be how someone who grew up during Ford's steady march to oblivion would describe the kind of constant changes that take place when your new product lead is no longer 60 months (c. 2000), and is now 20-22 months. Fact is, Fields and Stevens know what they want, and Bill Ford is behind them. Systemic corporate change is never orderly. IBM was extremely chaotic in the early-mid 90s. However, once new systems were fully implemented, things settled down.

 

Ford was well on the road to oblivion before Ford Jr. took a more active role and before Fields was promoted. Actions since then may be hastening Ford's doom or averting it. However, it can at least be said that they are doing something.

 

Tearing up new product plans that don't meet Fields' specs, and insisting on rapid redrafts is chaotic, however, it seems also to be necessary. The '02 restructuring did nothing to address the deep set cultural issues on the product planning side at Ford. The '02 restructuring largely nixed Ford's launch quality and manufacturing defect issues. No small feat, but only 1/3rd the required solution. Ford still had lots of capacity cuts to make, and product planning was still being driven by stagnant thinking from entrenched engineeers and marketers.

 

----

 

Things were chaotic in '48 too, and the smart money wasn't on Ford then, either. Order and organization are important, but remember what Nietzsche said, "I tell you: one must have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you still have chaos in you."

 

The entrenched product development bureaucracy at Ford needs to be shaken out of its slumber as surely as Ford's manufacturing managers needed a fire lit under their butts five years ago. Ford has technology in place to turn out new platforms in under two years. They need personnel that can work under that framework, though. Not people that are used to 4-5 year leads on some executive's dream of what 'the next big thing' will be.

Edited July 17, 2006 by RichardJensen

[DCK]

Hmm. I guess I saw myself as more of a jerk.

 

As far as chaos goes, I guess that may well be how someone who grew up during Ford's steady march to oblivion would describe the kind of constant changes that take place when your new product lead is no longer 60 months (c. 2000), and is now 20-22 months. Fact is, Fields and Stevens know what they want, and Bill Ford is behind them. Systemic corporate change is never orderly. IBM was extremely chaotic in the early-mid 90s. However, once new systems were fully implemented, things settled down.

 

Ford was well on the road to oblivion before Ford Jr. took a more active role and before Fields was promoted. Actions since then may be hastening Ford's doom or averting it. However, it can at least be said that they are doing something.

 

Tearing up new product plans that don't meet Fields' specs, and insisting on rapid redrafts is chaotic, however, it seems also to be necessary. The '02 restructuring did nothing to address the deep set cultural issues on the product planning side at Ford. The '02 restructuring largely nixed Ford's launch quality and manufacturing defect issues. No small feat, but only 1/3rd the required solution. Ford still had lots of capacity cuts to make, and product planning was still being driven by stagnant thinking from entrenched engineeers and marketers.

 

----

 

Things were chaotic in '48 too, and the smart money wasn't on Ford then, either. Order and organization are important, but remember what Nietzsche said, "I tell you: one must have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: you still have chaos in you."

 

The entrenched product development bureaucracy at Ford needs to be shaken out of its slumber as surely as Ford's manufacturing managers needed a fire lit under their butts five years ago. Ford has technology in place to turn out new platforms in under two years. They need personnel that can work under that framework, though. Not people that are used to 4-5 year leads on some executive's dream of what 'the next big thing' will be.

 

I actually agree with pretty much everything you said, and we won't really see the pay-off of Field's work until in 2008.

[RichardJensen]

I actually agree with pretty much everything you said, and we won't really see the pay-off of Field's work until in 2008.

Maybe in the future you won't be so quick to judge.... :P

[ZanatWork]

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tired of people with no concept of time.

 

Anyone that saw what was done to Ford's car programs since Donald Petersen (Peterson?) bowed out shouldn't be anything other than amazed by Ford's latest sedans' impact.

 

Toward the end of the Nasser era, I remember that Ford sedans had gotten flattened so badly in most comparos that they just quit attending them-or weren't invited. The Contour was the wrong size and had too many corners cut, the Taurus paled in comparison to the Japanese mainstays, and the Crown Vic was already ancient.

 

Anyone in the US AND in the real world isn't shocked by truck and SUV sales shrinkage...but the same people shouldn't miss the steady sales of the D3 cars and the growing sales of the CD3 cars. Gas price woes have helped the Focus regain some ground as well...and it's suffering from a too-stale update.

 

What the "analysts" miss is how important the existing car sales are. A happy customer tells friends, tells family about their car and may influence people on the fence, so to speak. A Five Hundred sold a year ago may actually create sales now in people that know the car's owner.

 

Ford cars needed to get back into the driveways, the lives, and the conversations of Americans. Guess what-it's happening.

[Roadrunner]

Interesting, Zan.

 

I think what counts is that people are satisfied with their purchase before they tell others. The new 500 and Fusion are important because a new car generates a limited amount of interest just because it's new. A Taurus is utilitarian in perception, but the others have something to write home about - sort of.

 

If I bought a Taurus, I wouldn't be enthusiastic about it. But a Fusion, well hot damn! Already the people I've shown it to have said good things about it.

 

I think that the 500 has the ability to generate word-of-mouth, but it will be among older owners than the boomer generation.

[2005GTP]

Let's breakdown what Ford has in store and see if they have a chance.....

 

The Edge and not Fusion will be Ford's make or break vehicle. That product should be able to dominate its segment (seems Ford is good at suvs/trucks). The Fusion is in a segment that has matured and its doubtful, despite putting out a good product, that the Fusion can win sales from Camry or Accord. Ford needs to blow away the competition in the growing segments. There will be a strong continuous shift towards small vehicles and Ford only has the Fusion that can make money at those lower prices. It makes no difference if Ford builds a good car or not, they have to sell it at a profit and until they do, they are in trouble.

 

Since Ford blew off the mini-van market with the Freestar, if they would have approved the Fairlane sooner, they may have had a bigger hit on their hands. I think that vehicle will do well but it seems that decisions come too little, too late. The same thing with the 427 (I like the 49 better). DCX beat em to the market and the rest is history.

[RichardJensen]

The Fusion is in a segment that has matured and its doubtful, despite putting out a good product, that the Fusion can win sales from Camry or Accord.

True. However, the CD3s are keeping Hermosillo busy and profitable, and for a first year entry in a segment that mature that Ford had largely abandoned..... It's not bad. It's a start. Ford needs vehicles like the Fusion that keep the factories running, keep the customers satisfied, even if they don't carve up a huge slice of the market. But they do also need vehicles like the Edge and Fairlane. Even coming to market in early 2008, nobody has anything more remarkable coming out before then. I think around summer '05 it became clear that neither the D3 nor the CD3 were good matches for the Fairlane, which meant substantially modifying one of them. The project code suggests the D3 got the nod.

 

It will arrive about 30 months after being greenlighted which is slow, but consider that Ford's product development team also got saddled with a lot of extra work during that time period. I would've liked to see it sooner, but Ford had not implemented the faster development processes here, like they had in Europe (EUCD approved winter 04/05: First production vehicle, Ford Galaxy, now on sale), during the crucial months between the NAIAS and Fields' systemic review in November.

 

Subsequently, so the rumor has it, Ford has moved up the C2 program, and the C2 Focus will arrive globally (including the NA) in 2008 (alternatively, the C2 will go on sale in the U.S. first). Moving up C2 was approved this winter, and the first vehicles will arrive about 2 years later. Roughly the same time as the Fairlane.

[igor]

Let's breakdown what Ford has in store and see if they have a chance.....

 

The Edge and not Fusion will be Ford's make or break vehicle. That product should be able to dominate its segment (seems Ford is good at suvs/trucks). The Fusion is in a segment that has matured and its doubtful, despite putting out a good product, that the Fusion can win sales from Camry or Accord. Ford needs to blow away the competition in the growing segments. There will be a strong continuous shift towards small vehicles and Ford only has the Fusion that can make money at those lower prices. It makes no difference if Ford builds a good car or not, they have to sell it at a profit and until they do, they are in trouble.

 

Since Ford blew off the mini-van market with the Freestar, if they would have approved the Fairlane sooner, they may have had a bigger hit on their hands. I think that vehicle will do well but it seems that decisions come too little, too late. The same thing with the 427 (I like the 49 better). DCX beat em to the market and the rest is history.

 

to an extent you are right - although I am not sure the DCX redesigned minivans will 1) come before 2008 and 2) will manage to improve on the current models 3) be different enough from minivans to no compete with Oddysey and Sienna.... Fairlane if done well will not only be a great competitor to the Sienna/Oddysey, but will have the difference factor going for it.

 

I think your analysis of Fusion / edge is correct -given the mature offerings by Honda nad Toyota in midsize sedan segment, the only viable goal for Fusion was to 1) stir some news 2) e present and competitive on shopping lists and comparos and 3) give diehard Ford fans an in-branf option - Fusion achieved that well, but no one can expect a nwcomer dominating a mature segment - camry and accord had some 30 years to hone their cutomer base and name equity. The Eyes are all on Edge - a new growing segment, without any dominant payers (or one that would actualy be perceived perfect) and closer to Ford's home turf - Edge needs to fly off of the showrooms and it needs to do it consistently .... foed needs this vehicle...

 

Finally - I think the not so exciting 2008 model year might actualy serve ford well, if they use it - there is a lot of space on their vehicles for improvement - interiors, styling etc - there is fine tuning to be done, and Fordneeds to follow through with it - making sure it learns everything possible from its vehicles as fast as possible - to an extent this will not happen, but I really wish for Ford to re-evaluate al their new products every ear, and add the bits and pieces customers are asking for. the Fusion - MKZ 06-07 "tuning" went well - Ford made some important changes, but more are needed ...

 

Igor

 

Subsequently, so the rumor has it, Ford has moved up the C2 program, and the C2 Focus will arrive globally (including the NA) in 2008 (alternatively, the C2 will go on sale in the U.S. first). Moving up C2 was approved this winter, and the first vehicles will arrive about 2 years later. Roughly the same time as the Fairlane.

 

richard do you have this confirmed from a trusty independent source? I had some weak links to this, but no confirmation... could you please give me the confirmation?

 

thanks

 

Igor

[RichardJensen]

richard do you have this confirmed from a trusty independent source? I had some weak links to this, but no confirmation... could you please give me the confirmation?

 

thanks

 

Igor

heard a couple other rumors to that effect.

[Ron W.]

A word to Ford execs: get out of the executive dining room and eat with rest of the Ford employees. Stop hiding in that executive suite. Come out and talk to the employees and the people who build your vehichles and you might learn something.

 

I like this idea, can you say team interaction?

[Edstock]

The C2 decision shows that, IMHO, Fields & Ford get it — the 'B' car, the Focus and Fusion cover about 80% of the sedan market, and that long-term sales require the best chassis possible, not the easiest to build, or the cheapest.

[RichardJensen]

I bet 90% of the people working in the glass house couldn't tell you where the closest assembly plant was. And if they did, they probably wouldn't know what the inside looks like.

Uh. Can't they see the nearest assembly plant from the windows? Or is that the point you were trying to make....

[grbeck]

See, I think some folks downplay the first and second-gen Taurus by either comparing them to today's quality standards or trying to create revisionist history about them. However, not having any experience with the Taurus, I'm not qualified to comment on how good or bad they were built.

 

You are very right in pointing out, though, that the D3s and Explorer/Mountaineer have superior quality. Here's hoping a situation like the 1999 Focus doesn't screw the pooch.

 

People often confuse build quality with reliability. A car can be beautifully built but still be unreliable (new VWs, for example). By the same token, a car can be thrown together but still be tough (early 1970s Plymouth Valiant/Dodge Dart).

 

The first Taurus was a quantum leap in build quality over the previous Ford family sedans and its GM and Chrysler competition. Compare a 1986 Taurus to a contemporary Olds Cutlass Ciera or Chrysler E-Class - it's no contest. The Taurus is well built, while the Olds and Chrysler displayed the workmanship typical for Detroit at that time (which is to say, not so good).

 

The first Taurus was not, however, an especially reliable machine. The automatic transmission and 3.8 V-6 were very troublesome, as were the air conditioning compressors and motor mounts. What saved the Taurus was that the Chrysler competition was usually worse, and the GM W-bodies, which debuted in 1988, had LOTS of teething troubles.

 

If reliability was your main concern, however, you were probably better off buying an Olds Cutlass Ciera or Buick Century, and living with the clunky design and so-so build quality.

 

As for the second-generation Taurus (1996 and up), I always thought they were better built than the first generation, and MUCH more reliable as well.