Jump to content

Has Ford learned anything yet?


Recommended Posts

I hope Ford learns one thing: You have to have a cheap, high mileage car in production AT ALL TIMES! Make it anywhere they want, but be able to make it available for sale at any given moment! let's wake up!

 

Fields is coming from Mazda and Ford of Europe - I am sure he realizes that, but refuses to honor such rule with a crappy car.

 

However, I personally might try to argue with that clause .... Richard once made a nice list of history of B-cars in US, and practicaly no brand continued producing one, because as Oil crisis passed, people hapily switched back to larger cars. This time might be different, and with the new popularity of Compacts, Having a beater B-car available might continue to serve the company, by letting the C- move upmarket.

 

But I am rambling - I think Fields knows this - I believe he understands Cars more than Trucks ... but above all, he pursues Consumer driven bussiness.. and so he must see the demand at this point in time.

 

Igor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I am rambling - I think Fields knows this - I believe he understands Cars more than Trucks ... but above all, he pursues Consumer driven bussiness.. and so he must see the demand at this point in time.

 

Igor

 

He better start understanding trucks ALOT better, most of Fords profits have been and are made in that market. If he lets that market go we are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He better start understanding trucks ALOT better, most of Fords profits have been and are made in that market. If he lets that market go we are done.

 

Well, luckily, ford has people in place whpo know trucks to the T... and Ford's Truck problem is not as big ... sohe does not need to make big changes there .. just make sure they do their job and create car for the customer.

 

Igor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I personally might try to argue with that clause .... Richard once made a nice list of history of B-cars in US, and practicaly no brand continued producing one, because as Oil crisis passed, people hapily switched back to larger cars. This time might be different, and with the new popularity of Compacts, Having a beater B-car available might continue to serve the company, by letting the C- move upmarket.

True but when the need arouse again, all other companies came and produced a product and Ford was left sitting on their hands. Their cheapest competitive car is the fusion, they flopped on the focus and B-segments and now they are paying the price

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution to Ford's "truck problem" can be summed up in one word: DIESEL. I pray that Ford is on top of this, so that when the new, low sulfer, fuel is availible, Ford will have a line of 4, 6 & 8 cly diesels ready for immediate launch. They've had 5 yrs to prepare for this. There will be no excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, with all of the praises on how Mark Field turned around Mazda, have they yet gained back the market share they had originally lost? Also, has the same thing happened to Ford of Europe? Every one is singing his praises but I wonder if has resulted in increased marketshare or more of his success has been in shrinking the divisions to a new reality but better profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some comments:

 

1. Mark Fields did NOT turn around Mazda. He was in the right place at the right time. From a corporate standpoint, Henry Wallace turned Mazda around, and from a product standpoint, Martin Leach turned Mazda around. Friends of mine from Mazda are still not sure what either Fields or Phil Martens actually did while they were there. (That being said, Mark Fields and Ann Stevens are a class act, it's the rest of the management that has to go).

2. Someone mentioned that Ford diesel trucks would be Ford's saviour. Not likely. Consider that the new 6.0L Navistar diesel has been such a disaster that Ford has built up its own diesel group to supplant that diesel. Quality on the 6.0L has led to warranty costs in the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars and is rapidly alienating the multitudes of formerly loyal customers. You can blame Szczupak for dropping the ball on this one.

3. Bill Ford had lied to all of you regarding hybrids. When Bill announced his intention to sell 250K hybrids in (whatever timeframe it was); what he didn't tell you (or didn't know) was that all hybrid technology that Ford was using was coming from Aisin (which is owned by Toyota). And Aisin was both limiting Ford access to the latest technology (like in the new Prius), and limiting Ford's ability to access more capacity. Additionally, Aisin has set deadlines internally to cut off Ford from Hybrid supply. So do you think that Ford management would either find another source or build up its capability? The didn't. These was no investment allocated to the spending plan. This means that Ford had no way of increasing its hybrid footprint and no way of creating its own replacement.

4. Ford knew in the late Nasser days that its product plan was precarious. They had at one point 5 of top 10 best selling vehicles (Ranger, Focus, Taurus, F150, & Explorer). Now they are down to one - the F150 which has huge quality concerns and will soon be challenged by Toyota new plant situated in the heart of Ford F150 country - texas. The Focus has been cost reduced to the point where it's not as interesting a car as when it was launched, the Taurus is already dead, the Ranger in its present for is dying (with no real profitable replacement in sight) and the Explorer just has too much (better) competition.

5. Can Ford survive? In my view, not likely. Their problems are too deep, their management ranks were destroyed to a large degree in the post Ford-2000 days (both pre and post Nasser), their engineering talent had been decimated, their styling is bland, and their quality is poor. In the past 8 to nine years they've dropped 8-9 point of market share in North America and there is no likely end in sight. This is shameful for a company that in WW2 produced more war material than all of Italy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some comments:

4. Ford knew in the late Nasser days that its product plan was precarious. They had at one point 5 of top 10 best selling vehicles (Ranger, Focus, Taurus, F150, & Explorer). Now they are down to one - the F150 which has huge quality concerns and will soon be challenged by Toyota new plant situated in the heart of Ford F150 country - texas. The Focus has been cost reduced to the point where it's not as interesting a car as when it was launched, the Taurus is already dead, the Ranger in its present for is dying (with no real profitable replacement in sight) and the Explorer just has too much (better) competition.

 

1. What are the HUGE quality concerns on the current F-150? Please fill us in on that.

 

2. The Focus is getting a complete re-skin for 2008 and an all new Focus is coming 2 to 3 years after that.

 

3. The Taurus is dead. Let's stop talking about it and focus on the new Fusion.

 

4. Name one midsized body on frame SUV that is better then the Explorer...give us reasons why it is better. Better suspension? chassis? transmission? engine? rear seating? safety? towing???

Edited by 2005Explorer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Name one midsized body on frame SUV that is better then the Explorer...give us reasons why it is better. Better suspension? chassis? transmission? engine? rear seating? towing???"

 

So what if the Explorer is best in class.

 

From the wall Street Journal this morning:

 

"We are trying to figure out how and how much to advertise new produsts (i.e. Expedition and Navigator) that are going into a segment that may be DOA, " said a ford manager familiar with the Way Forward plan. "We don't want to duplicate what happened with the Explorer."

 

What happened to the Explorer? Even with a redesigned version sales are down 33%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Name one midsized body on frame SUV that is better then the Explorer...give us reasons why it is better. Better suspension? chassis? transmission? engine? rear seating? towing???"

 

So what if the Explorer is best in class.

 

From the wall Street Journal this morning:

 

"We are trying to figure out how and how much to advertise new produsts (i.e. Expedition and Navigator) that are going into a segment that may be DOA, " said a ford manager familiar with the Way Forward plan. "We don't want to duplicate what happened with the Explorer."

 

What happened to the Explorer? Even with a redesigned version sales are down 33%.

 

Fuel prices are what happened to the Explorer. If fuel was still under $2 a gallon Explorer's would still be flying off the lots. I am not sure why...but fuel prices have effected the midsized traditional SUV market more then anything. It probably has something to do with the vehicle having more capability then what the customer really needs. They are either moving down to CUV's or up to fullsized SUV's if they have to pay for the fuel anyway.

 

When fuel was cheap, the Explorer had that...masculine quality that people loved even if they did not need all it's capabilities. Those people are now moving to cars and CUV's.

 

The only thing that will help the Explorer is it might become the only vehicle of it's type in a couple of years. Not everyone wants to drive a huge SUV around still many like myself need something that can actually be taken off-road and pull a trailer without tearing the powertrain up.

 

The new Explorer has not been real successful, but I don't think it has anything to do with the competitiveness of the vehicle itself. It is best in class...but there are many other things working against it.

Edited by 2005Explorer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fields put a coherent face on Mazda products.

 

Int'l is still building the 6.4L Powerstroke. If the 6.0 disaster led to closer collaboration with Int'l to prevent further disasters, then at least it had an upside. However, Ford is not planning on dismissing Int'l. Rather, they are interested in pushing diesel into smaller displacement V8s, V6s and 4s, which is where Int'l has no experience.

 

Ford designed the Escape hybrid from the ground up. They rely on Aisin for transmissions and Sanyo for batteries. Both have prior commitments to Toyota. However, since hybrid demand is levelling off, there may be plenty of supplies for all. Also, Aisin's relationship with Toyota is somewhat more hands-off than Ford/Mazda, I don't believe Toyota has a controlling stake in Aisin, but they do hold equity, and are their largest customer. Ford also is not going to build batteries (the big bottleneck), they're going to find a supplier that will build them. And since hybrid demand seems to have reached a plateau, capacity should catch up.

 

As weak as the truck market has suddenly become, the Tundra is in deeeeep soup. The market is not growing, and Toyota has doubled Tundra capacity. Ford's decision to cut F-series production is a defensive move to ensure low inventory next year, and higher transaction prices for the F150, vs. the Tundra.

 

Focus is new next year, with substantial changes to sheetmetal, interior, and chassis, (and even in present configuration carries such options as traction control, side-airbags, and leather for lower transaction prices than the Civic & Corolla) the compact truck market is shrinking, with Ford either bringing over the global Ranger for assembly alongside the Explorer at LAP, or building a NA only Ranger on the Explorer architecture--odds are, IMO, the global Ranger, as it likely will be lighter, and therefore get better gas mileage. Explorer does not have 'better' competition, if you're going by NVH, safety equipment, or trailering. All are best in class on the Explorer.

 

And here we are at the end of it, Ford is doomed. Just another rejectionist, after all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>>1. What are the HUGE quality concerns on the current F-150? Please fill us in on that.

 

The F150 is the vehicle that creates the lion's share of "profits" for Ford today. Within the F150 brand, it is the Powerstroke that creates the majority of profits. The new 6.0L diesel, the heart of the Powerstroke brand as I stated is causing huge quality problems that still have not yet been completely fixed. Navistar did a poor job with the execution of the program (to the piont where Ford engineering had to go to the Navistar facilities to fix many of their problems). The diesel is the image vehicle for the F150 and that image is going down fast.

 

>>>>2. The Focus is getting a complete re-skin for 2008 and an all new Focus is coming 2 to 3 years after that.

 

But the Focus has already lost its momentum in the market. It used to be a C&D top 10 vehicle and has seen dramatic sales decreases.

 

>>>>3. The Taurus is dead. Let's stop talking about it and focus on the new Fusion.

 

Fusion has not replaced the Taurus in market impact, sales, or profitability - nor likely will it.

 

>>>>4. Name one midsized body on frame SUV that is better then the Explorer...give us reasons why it is better. Better suspension? chassis? transmission? engine? rear seating? towing???

 

It's not that that Explorer is such a bad vehicle, it isn't. It's just that it cannot be sold at the volumes that Ford knows how to most efficiently produce it. Ford has always had a problem with building flexibility into its facilities. Tell me, what other vehicles are built on the same lines as Explorer (and don't say Mountaineer)???? Now look at how many vehicles will be built on a single Toyota or Honda line. Ford will live or die based on how flexible its manufacturing processes will be. And not only are they not there yet, they have no viable plan to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

If Ford makes money on the Taurus, why are they closing Atlanta in October?

 

Yes the Taurus makes money. All the tooling has loong been amortized so there is plenty of "incremental" profit (as a Ford finance guy would tell you). The problem is that the vehicle would need additional engineering to keep it viable and the platform itself is now orphaned. The only way that Ford can survive is by platform consolidation and flexibility at the existing manufacturing facilities - that is why Taurus is being deleted - not because of any lingering profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>>1. What are the HUGE quality concerns on the current F-150? Please fill us in on that.

 

The F150 is the vehicle that creates the lion's share of "profits" for Ford today. Within the F150 brand, it is the Powerstroke that creates the majority of profits. The new 6.0L diesel, the heart of the Powerstroke brand as I stated is causing huge quality problems that still have not yet been completely fixed. Navistar did a poor job with the execution of the program (to the piont where Ford engineering had to go to the Navistar facilities to fix many of their problems). The diesel is the image vehicle for the F150 and that image is going down fast.

 

>>>>2. The Focus is getting a complete re-skin for 2008 and an all new Focus is coming 2 to 3 years after that.

 

But the Focus has already lost its momentum in the market. It used to be a C&D top 10 vehicle and has seen dramatic sales decreases.

 

>>>>3. The Taurus is dead. Let's stop talking about it and focus on the new Fusion.

 

Fusion has not replaced the Taurus in market impact, sales, or profitability - nor likely will it.

 

>>>>4. Name one midsized body on frame SUV that is better then the Explorer...give us reasons why it is better. Better suspension? chassis? transmission? engine? rear seating? towing???

 

It's not that that Explorer is such a bad vehicle, it isn't. It's just that it cannot be sold at the volumes that Ford knows how to most efficiently produce it. Ford has always had a problem with building flexibility into its facilities. Tell me, what other vehicles are built on the same lines as Explorer (and don't say Mountaineer)???? Now look at how many vehicles will be built on a single Toyota or Honda line. Ford will live or die based on how flexible its manufacturing processes will be. And not only are they not there yet, they have no viable plan to do so.

 

I only have a few comments on this...

 

1) Most people in the market for a light duty pickup like the F-150 could care less about the SuperDuty. I don't think SuperDuty problems effect MOST people in the market for an F-150. The two vehicles share nothing except the "F" in the model name. A new PowerStroke is coming. I will agree the 6.0L started off as a POS, but they have fixed it. The biggest mistake it is should have been as good as it is today the first day it came out. They messed up...they could just give up...but at this time there are only 2 choices...a new improved engine...or quit diesel production. They are going with a new engine. They can't go back and fix what they did wrong last time...they can only make sure it never happens again.

 

2) You are correct, the Focus has cooled off, but high fuel prices have kept people interested. I agree a Focus that looks different is needed now. I don't think the name has been ruined yet, people are still interested in the Focus enough that a new model will build excitement again. It's not like the current Focus is a piece of crap...it's not. There is just a lot newer stuff out there and I agree Ford needs to get with the program on this ASAP. The 2008 model can't come soon enough and they need to focus on 40MPG highway.

 

3) The Fusion is a much better car then the Taurus. It is too early to rule it out as a failure. It is a good car that seems to be selling well. The factory is running at 100%. I disagree with you that the Taurus was a more profitable model then the Fusion. 2 reasons...1) Taurus was a fleet special. 2) Fusions labor cost is MUCH less.

 

4) I agree the Explorer chassis needs to used for more products. A new Ranger should be rolling down the line in Louisville along with the Explorer, Mountaineer and SportTrac. A Ranger based on the Explorer chassis would be very competive with other midsized pickup offerings. Parts sharing would really help costs and it would keep the line busy since all are in receding markets. They need to be in those markets because money can still be made there, but they need to be smarter about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the Taurus makes money. All the tooling has loong been amortized so there is plenty of "incremental" profit (as a Ford finance guy would tell you). The problem is that the vehicle would need additional engineering to keep it viable and the platform itself is now orphaned. The only way that Ford can survive is by platform consolidation and flexibility at the existing manufacturing facilities - that is why Taurus is being deleted - not because of any lingering profits.

Ford is not closing STAP. That's because the make money off the CV and GM.

 

Ford is closing Atlanta. That's because they are not making money off the Taurus.

 

Two orphaned platforms, two different fates. Why? Because one is profitable, the other is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuel prices are what happened to the Explorer. If fuel was still under $2 a gallon Explorer's would still be flying off the lots. I am not sure why...but fuel prices have effected the midsized traditional SUV market more then anything. It probably has something to do with the vehicle having more capability then what the customer really needs. They are either moving down to CUV's or up to fullsized SUV's if they have to pay for the fuel anyway.

 

When fuel was cheap, the Explorer had that...masculine quality that people loved even if they did not need all it's capabilities. Those people are now moving to cars and CUV's.

 

The only thing that will help the Explorer is it might become the only vehicle of it's type in a couple of years. Not everyone wants to drive a huge SUV around still many like myself need something that can actually be taken off-road and pull a trailer without tearing the powertrain up.

 

The new Explorer has not been real successful, but I don't think it has anything to do with the competitiveness of the vehicle itself. It is best in class...but there are many other things working against it.

 

 

I'll say it again. The future of all Ford trucks, (including the Explorer) is going to be determined by the successful launch of new diesels. They better be ready with a complete line of 4, 6 & 8 cyl's the day the new fuel hits the market.

 

This holds true for cars also, but not to the same extent.

Edited by Hemiman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toyota Toyota Toyota they have a new truck coming, but is still only a 1/2 ton (f150). Texas is more super duty than F-150. The midwest is more the 150 style.

 

Toyota should be smarter than this. Maybe they're just too arrogant. They shouldn't be trying to hit the market by out F-150ing the F-150. The same could be said of Ford trying to out Camery the Camery with the 500.

 

To make in-roads you have to make an end run. You do that by giving the customer something different in style with a percived cool image. If Toyota were smart, they'ed hit the 1/2 ton market with a pickup version of their FJ-Landcruiser. This would tap pent up demand for a rugged, off road capable, 1/2 ton truck. Then once they built the tough guy image, launch a more mainstream model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Wall Street Journal:

 

"While Ford anticipated continued erosion in the SUV segment, Mr. Pipas said, falling demand in the large pickup truck segmant over the past four months has been a surprise. He said gasoline prices have led consumers away from Ford's best-selling pickup trucks, long a key source of profits for the auto maker, representing about 25% of Ford's global volume."

 

"But Ford's problem isn't just that its SUVs and pickups aren't selling as they used to. It's that the cars and crossovers it sells aren't reaping competitive - or in some cases any - profits."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have a few comments on this...

 

1) Most people in the market for a light duty pickup like the F-150 could care less about the SuperDuty. I don't think SuperDuty problems effect MOST people in the market for an F-150. The two vehicles share nothing except the "F" in the model name. A new PowerStroke is coming. I will agree the 6.0L started off as a POS, but they have fixed it. The biggest mistake it is should have been as good as it is today the first day it came out. They messed up...they could just give up...but at this time there are only 2 choices...a new improved engine...or quit diesel production. They are going with a new engine. They can't go back and fix what they did wrong last time...they can only make sure it never happens again.

 

2) You are correct, the Focus has cooled off, but high fuel prices have kept people interested. I agree a Focus that looks different is needed now. I don't think the name has been ruined yet, people are still interested in the Focus enough that a new model will build excitement again. It's not like the current Focus is a piece of crap...it's not. There is just a lot newer stuff out there and I agree Ford needs to get with the program on this ASAP. The 2008 model can't come soon enough and they need to focus on 40MPG highway.

 

3) The Fusion is a much better car then the Taurus. It is too early to rule it out as a failure. It is a good car that seems to be selling well. The factory is running at 100%. I disagree with you that the Taurus was a more profitable model then the Fusion. 2 reasons...1) Taurus was a fleet special. 2) Fusions labor cost is MUCH less.

 

4) I agree the Explorer chassis needs to used for more products. A new Ranger should be rolling down the line in Louisville along with the Explorer, Mountaineer and SportTrac. A Ranger based on the Explorer chassis would be very competive with other midsized pickup offerings. Parts sharing would really help costs and it would keep the line busy since all are in receding markets. They need to be in those markets because money can still be made there, but they need to be smarter about it.

 

Responses:

1. There is a lot more connection between the Superduty vehicles and the base 150s than you think. It's like the Cobra and Gt Mustangs creating enough interest for the V6.

2. You are right that Ford needs to focus (no pun intended) on 40mpg but unlike Toyota or Honda they don't want to invest in the necessary technology. Ford has always taken a "fast follower" strategy which worked in the 70s and 80s but doesn't wotrk now. But you need infrastructure in place to create leading technology. And that technology capability is what Ford has been retiring first.

3. The Fusion is a smaller car than the taurus. IT would be better to say that the Fusion is a better Contour because both are "CD" sized vehicles. Quite frankly, most people who look at the Fusion see it stylistically as an updated Tempo (put the two side by side - the similarities are surprising).

4. You are right about where the Ranger SHOULD be produced, but thank the Explorer team for insisting upon changes that made the two vehicle incompatable on the same line. And a Ranger based on Explorer was looked at and initially thought to be too expensive (but unfortunately the same problem exists with the Asian small pickup - that market wants more glitz than the typical NA Ranger customer).

 

 

 

"Ford is not closing STAP. That's because the make money off the CV and GM."

 

Oh yes they are. Volume in 2004 was over 170K. In 2005MY it was about 137K. That's a 20% reduction in volume. There is no investment planned in the Cycle Plan for upgrades and Ford has politely told the police community that they plan to pull the product.

 

"Ford is closing Atlanta. That's because they are not making money off the Taurus."

 

No it is because the platform can no longer be supported. It requires engineering resources that are no longer available within the corporation. What is ironic about closing Atlanta is that it is (per the harbour reports) the most efficient plant in the Ford community. What does that tell the Union - Hey guys, if you're efficient you'll get closed anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. The Fusion is a smaller car than the taurus. IT would be better to say that the Fusion is a better Contour because both are "CD" sized vehicles. Quite frankly, most people who look at the Fusion see it stylistically as an updated Tempo (put the two side by side - the similarities are surprising).

 

Uh The Tempo was nothing more then a puffed up Escort and the Taraus was too big for the current market..Ford was basically selling a D sized vechicle at CD prices, much like whats happening with the Focus. Ford split the market between the Fusion and 500 and will get the prices/profits they should

 

4. You are right about where the Ranger SHOULD be produced, but thank the Explorer team for insisting upon changes that made the two vehicle incompatable on the same line. And a Ranger based on Explorer was looked at and initially thought to be too expensive (but unfortunately the same problem exists with the Asian small pickup - that market wants more glitz than the typical NA Ranger customer).

the 1994-01 Explorer had the same frame as the Ranger when it first hit the market...and all those changes that made the Explorer different the the Ranger was to make the Explorer SAFER! lets convently forget how those early Explorers where prone to flipping and what not. Much of what was done with Explorer was done in the name of saftey

 

What is ironic about closing Atlanta is that it is (per the harbour reports) the most efficient plant in the Ford community. What does that tell the Union - Hey guys, if you're efficient you'll get closed anyway.

 

 

Efficienty doesnt mean a hill of beans if they can't make a profit off the product they are producting there..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responses:

1. There is a lot more connection between the Superduty vehicles and the base 150s than you think. It's like the Cobra and Gt Mustangs creating enough interest for the V6.

2. You are right that Ford needs to focus (no pun intended) on 40mpg but unlike Toyota or Honda they don't want to invest in the necessary technology. Ford has always taken a "fast follower" strategy which worked in the 70s and 80s but doesn't wotrk now. But you need infrastructure in place to create leading technology. And that technology capability is what Ford has been retiring first.

3. The Fusion is a smaller car than the taurus. IT would be better to say that the Fusion is a better Contour because both are "CD" sized vehicles. Quite frankly, most people who look at the Fusion see it stylistically as an updated Tempo (put the two side by side - the similarities are surprising).

4. You are right about where the Ranger SHOULD be produced, but thank the Explorer team for insisting upon changes that made the two vehicle incompatable on the same line. And a Ranger based on Explorer was looked at and initially thought to be too expensive (but unfortunately the same problem exists with the Asian small pickup - that market wants more glitz than the typical NA Ranger customer).

"Ford is not closing STAP. That's because the make money off the CV and GM."

 

Oh yes they are. Volume in 2004 was over 170K. In 2005MY it was about 137K. That's a 20% reduction in volume. There is no investment planned in the Cycle Plan for upgrades and Ford has politely told the police community that they plan to pull the product.

 

"Ford is closing Atlanta. That's because they are not making money off the Taurus."

 

No it is because the platform can no longer be supported. It requires engineering resources that are no longer available within the corporation. What is ironic about closing Atlanta is that it is (per the harbour reports) the most efficient plant in the Ford community. What does that tell the Union - Hey guys, if you're efficient you'll get closed anyway.

1) Show me one bit of corroborating evidence that the Super Duty is a 'halo' product that draws people into the more quotidian F150.

 

2) Ford has never had a 'fast follower' strategy. The Taurus, Mustang, Explorer, F150, none have been 'follower' products.

 

3) Compare interior volumes and dimensions between the Taurus and Fusion.

 

Taurus:

Headroom (Front) 40.0

Headroom (Row 2) 38.1

Hiproom (Front) 54.4

Hiproom (Row 2) 55.7

Legroom (Front) 42.2

Legroom (Row 2) 38.9

Shoulder Room (Front) 57.3

Shoulder Room (Row 2) 56.6

 

Fusion:

Headroom (Front) 38.7

Headroom (Row 2) 37.8

Hiproom (Front) 54.0

Hiproom (Row 2) 53.4

Legroom (Front) 42.3

Legroom (Row 2) 37.0

Shoulder Room (Front) 57.4

Shoulder Room (Row 2) 56.5

 

Gee. Looks pretty similar, except rear leg and hiproom and front headroom. There's 1 more cubic foot of trunk room and 5 more cubic feet of passenger room.

 

--BTW-- you do realize that when you say "Most people" you're talking about like 150 million people. If you think 150 million people, when shown the Fusion, will say, "hmm. looks like an updated Tempo".........

 

4) the Mustang and Mazda6 are built on the same line at AAI. Ford can build both Ranger and Explorer at LAP.

 

And finally, it's funny that you say the Taurus requires engineering resources that can no longer be supported, and yet the Panther persists. Furthermore, if Ford was turning even a minuscule profit on output from Atlanta, why would they close the plant this year, instead of 2008 (when Ford has scheduled a close for TCAP which builds the Ranger, which Ford DOES make a profit on), or extend the product into the indefinite future (like STAP, where they build the CV/GM)? Ford makes no money on the Taurus. It's too expensive to build and it's ASP is far too low. The CV/GM at least has about a 30% retail mix with the profitable GM line (which is itself about 60% retail). And finally, Ford has announced no plans to close STAP, whereas Atlanta is closing this fall. Will STAP close? Perhaps, it certainly looks so, but you can draw a very distinct conclusion about what is profitable and what is not based on what is going away and what is not.

 

Just another rejectionist.

 

I think we need to have a "Why Ford is doomed" forum, so all you guys can just sit around confirming each others opinions and feeling smug.

Edited by RichardJensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...