Auto industry analysts have cast their beady eyes on The Blue Oval's third turnaround plan, and they don’t like what they see. Despite the fact that Billy and Alan and Mark have mashed the gas on Ford’s downsizing, there are ominous rumblings that the cuts aren’t deep enough. The assertion is almost as shocking as the cuts themselves. If asking all of your 75k union workers to piss off isn’t enough, if shuttering sixteen plants doesn’t cut the financial mustard, well, is there any end to this death spiral? Only the obvious one.
To review: Ford wants to jettison 30k members of the United Auto Workers (UAW). The analysts are saying it ain’t gonna happen dot bomb. FoMoCo’s assembly liners are younger than GM’s. Ford’s $140k lump sum payoff offer matches The General’s, but Ford workers’ relative immaturity means their pensions would be significantly smaller. Some analysts are predicting that Ford will fall short of its workers-out-the-door goal by 10k union members– raising the specter of yet more deposits into Ford’s infamous money-for-nothing jobs bank.
But that’s not what’s preoccupying prognosticating pundits. They’re concerned that Ford hasn’t named the final two factories they plan on shuttering. While this website has attributed Ford’s secrecy on this matter to political concerns (i.e. not pissing off friendly pols in whose districts the axe will fall), the rest of the crystal ball set see it differently. They consider the mystery a reflection of confusion, indecision and poor product planning (i.e. business as usual). In other words, if you don’t know what you need to build, you don’t know what not to build and where you shouldn’t be building it.
Addressing the topic in Automotive News, Catherine Madden, senior analyst at Global Insight, left her word mincer at home. "This indicates that Ford doesn't have a clear handle on what their product plan strategy is beyond 2008." Analyst Glenn Mercer was equally forthright: "The implication is that they haven't really figured this out yet, and if that's the case, one has to wonder what they have been doing for the past six months — or six years."
These number crunchers reckon that Ford’s production cutbacks will peg the company’s capacity utilization (actual output vs. potential output) at 84%. That would leave The Blue Oval Boys with excess production capacity equal to 500k units. That’s not good; Ford has to pay for this unused, unprofitable potential. Ford spokesman Oscar Suris’ counter: we’re getting there. In fact, if we hit 100% capacity utilization any sooner than our new new 2010 target date, we’ll have to surrender sales and/or invest in costly retooling.
Surrender sales, indeed. The industry analysts' calculations are based on Ford’s projection that it’ll capture 14% of next year’s domestic car market. If they don’t hit that target, even the 84% utilization figure will look like wishful thinking, and the automaker's profitability by '09 pledge will have as much credibility as cold fusion.
Obviously, it all comes down to product. According to Ford execs, the company’s got the goods to hold the fort, and maybe even fight a skirmish or two. They put tremendous stock in the $26k Edge. But back when the Mercury Montego (a badge engineered Ford 500) was launched, John Fitzpatrick predicted "We expect to conquest about 40 percent, meaning 40 percent of our Montego customers will be people who are outside the Ford family right now."
It didn't happen, but it must, and soon. In order to survive, Ford must lure non-Ford buyers into the fold. Although the media quite rightly focuses on the need for Ford to build gotta have products, the window of opportunity may already be shut. Think of it this way: Toyota, Honda, Nissan et al. didn’t establish segment dominance simply by building good products. They built good products in segments where American cars sucked. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it’s worth noting that the so-called imports’ products don’t suck.
Perhaps there is merit to this whole “Bold Moves” thing. It seems pretty clear that Ford no longer has enough cash/time to make the incremental changes that could gradually win it enough business to stay in business. Maybe it’s time for the Blue Oval to do a Walt Disney: bet the whole company on a radical new product. Ford has a long history of creating exciting concept cars; cars that could legitimately be called segment busters. Who was it that said history is bunk? Screw the past. Build some weird shit. If we heard about some bold moves on the new product front, we’d have reason to hope. But we don’t, so we don’t.
Holy crap. Having worked for GM for years I know for a while that they have no other choice but bancruptcy, but it looks as if Ford is trying really hard to beat them to it. It looks like as if they are simply going to run out of cash soon.
It’s a pretty dim situation, what’s going on at Ford. Even reading the possibility that all the cuts Ford is trying to make won’t be enough makes me kind of sick to be honest. Excess inventory is hurting Chrysler, and killing Ford.
A profitable company makes products people want to buy. Period. However, its not that Ford builds bad cars, they build pretty good cars. But what they need are great cars.
According to the Detroit News Ford’s and GM’s S&P credit rating is now the same as Argentina’s rating. ARGENTINA!!!!!
Even if things look bad at Ford, I think that having a plan puts them far ahead of GM. If they can show investors that they are following a plan, even if they are loosing money now, they won’t forever. I think they have a better chance of pulling through then GM.
Where is the modern day ’86 Taurus that they need so badly?
The fact that one of my favorite cars, the Ford GT, was labeled “Pace car for an entire company” may go down as a big fat historical chuckle. How sad is that?
I agree with Don W. It seems both Ford and GM, in an effort to be first to jettison union contracts to lighten their financial load, are missing the boat. If Ford is “first”, once they are *finally* in a position to build cars more cheaply, what *exactly* do they plan to build, where, and how quickly? It seems we’re only getting half an answer from them (being generous here).
Will these post-resurrection cars be something you and I will want to consider buying? Or, will they be more of the same? Will the first to go BK be perceived as a pariah and lose half their existing market share, regardless?
If the second to BK is hoping to pick up that market share, they’re whistling Dixie.
In my view the B word is the only solution.I do agree with a lot of the folks that say,nobody is gonna buy a car from a bankrupt car company.So my question is,where does that leave G.M?
Do the top exets.at GM high 5 each other and jump on the 15% market thats open?Or do they cry in thier beer saying ,FORD will restructure with less wages, less debt, and less expensive products?Or does G.M.say if its good for FORD its works for us to.
Its tough on myself and literaly thousands of us to know wich way to turn.
I have a letter in front of me that states Dear employee please retire and we will give you some money and a pension.Do bankrupt companys pay pensions?I will be dammed if I know.
I’m still scratching my head over the Honda element and the Toyota Scion XB. Weird shit.
I’m not sure how Nissan and Toyota are doing it but they are building a following. Hell, Clark Howard has one in his garage.
If Ford does not hit its attrition goal, it could hurt a bit. But Im betting they will negotiate the jobs bank out of the next contract. It would behoove the workers to take all they can get and run.
Im a little surprised at Billy. I would think he would have at least 2 concepts coming to market considering his age. He is really thinking like an older responsible middle aged man. A few years ago at the auto show Ford displayed a “Tonka” concept truck. I would have auctioned my mothers left kidney on ebay for that truck.
I’ve noticed since GM has given the green light for the camero few enthuists whine about gas cost. Ford drops a 500 horse power engine in the Mustang and mpg is an after thought. Perhaps if Ford’s core line up consisted of bad ass monster cars and trucks, they would build a huge bad ass following. GM seems to be on that road with the soltice.
And by the way expecting to conquest 40% of non Ford customers within your own domestic borders, does not constitute winning the battle to me. It’s a global economy.
GM = no openess in discussing future, analyst say company must be doing well
FoMoCo = publicize their future plans, analyst say company is going to tank
no fair!
. . . “They’re concerned that Ford hasn’t named the final two factories
. . . they plan on shuttering.”
Actually, this is a very smart thing for Ford to do. By keeping everybody guessing about where these last two beheadings will take place, they can play the corporate welfare game to the max. Now all of these state governments are going to start giving concessions to Ford to NOT close a plant in their state. Thus, Ford stands to gain a collective windfall from all of these different states.
Every $100 million Ford can “save” this way is $100 million more for Molally’s compensation. This way, Ford’s PR people can “truthfully”say Molally’s compensation will not cost the shareholders anything.
Even if Ford disclosed the last two plants to go, these analysts would mope and whine. It’s what analysts do, but if they were actually competent in their field and industry of expertise, I presume they could propose a better solution and get hired on to implement it.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t …………… preach.
RicardoHead: If that was true, tent revivals would be crammed with GM and Ford execs.
The Element has somewhat been a failure, at least compared with what Honda wanted and the demographics they targeted…
HOWEVER, the line its built on is trivially flexible, they can shift from Elements to CR-Vs to the new Acura ‘ute on almost a car by car basis, so utilization can be very VERY high.
Also, the element is a GREAT mini-worktruck, and is being bought by people as a mini-worktruck.
Am I missing something or did we skip Ford Death Watch #9? I guess Farago really does hate the big 2.5, he’s trying to turn off life support before he gets his hands on the power of attorney!
I think these manufacturers should be doing their MRP planning with a “hysteresis” effect in mind. Even if either of them built a “great product” and got it to the dealers at the speed of light there are those (like myself) who will continue to send the advertizing flyers to the recycle pile without a look and shun those same showrooms. We’ve been burned (2 Ford transmissions that sucked and broke) – we’re shy of the fire now!
Having said that – a company can’t really just cut itself to profitability. Growth on the top line has to be found somewhere.
Sadly, a good example Ford’s predicament is the not-so-hot-selling Fusion/Milan/MKZ – close, but no cigar. They’ve gotten good reviews but aren’t segment busting, are just behind the curve with features and technology, subpar safety due to IIHS crash scores below the segment leaders + no ESC yet. At least they’re built in Mexico which probably means they can still make a profit despite cut-rate financing.
A few funky B segment entries might do wonders for Ford’s image, the Explorer for the next decade in terms of sales and mindshare, although for minimal profit. Whether or not they can match the following of the Scion xB or the even squarer upcoming (JDM) Nissan Cube, or the simplicity and economy of the rumored forthcoming (EU) Toyota Aygo, remains to be seen. Just might snag a new generation of buyers if it’s done right.
I saw a chilling quote from Anne Stevens, who just quit as COO of Ford North America:
“The company has too many layers, the company is too bureaucratic, and it takes too long to get things done.”
If the COO who has the backing of the guy whose (grandfather’s) name is on the door can’t fight through the bureaucracy, then who can? Maybe this is why Ford has only engineered one new platform in the U.S. in the last decade (F150). Pity.
I don’t expect C11 for Ford, but rather a few more years of turmoil as they continue to cut production to match declining sales. If the new savior, the Edge does manage to sell 100K units next year, it will likely come out of Explorer, Escape and Freestyle sales. Doesn’t help revenues.
This is a sad situation. The truth is (IMHO) that both GM and Ford are reaping what they have sown for years. Making defective products and not taking responsibility for them for years. They lost a lot of customers. If a customer is on a 6 to 8 year buying cycle, they wouldn’t know they lost him for that amount of time. And then, how much time would it take to win him back? They (esp. Ford) don’t have that much time.
Conversely, what does this do to us as Americans. Can our economy survive this? Is there a point where one says “I know this is an inferior product but I have to support (as best as possible in the land of who knows where what was made and, more importantly, where do the profits go) this country’s economy. The question I pose is not rhetorical. I don’t have the answer. Does anyone? Will we find out the hard way?
Well, they might start with building the Mondeo in this country rather than wasting our time with the Fusion and 500. Or the new Focus ST which is absolutely hot (go to their UK site, in orange it is a killer). But I guess Muricans just don’t wanna buy them there furrin cars. In other words, they have some cars out there they might just be attractive, but as long as they view all car buyers as just wanting the same old thing, then anything beyond pickup and Mustang mfg. is going to be “excess capacity”. Of course, I just noticed that the California attorney general has decided to sue all the auto mfgs. out of business for contributing to green house gases, so this academic anyway, by the time the lawyers get done we’ll all be SOL.
This is why I had great hopes for Billy Ford’s environmental leanings. He could have made deep cuts, set in motion a profitable American Prius program five years ago, and made Ford a world leader again.
The difference between GM and Ford is that GM is making a less transparent effort to control their PR and doing a much better job of it. Ford should probably upgrade their PR flaks.
It’s not clear to me that GM is really doing any better than they were at Death Watch 1, but they are managing their PR better. I mean, they’re still selling Hummers. Do they have no idea of the legal liability they’re in for? Take a look at the new California lawsuit — whatever its merits (probably just a ploy to boost Der Gropinator’s enviro cred) — if you want to see the real beginning of the end of the SUV.
starlightmica,
I agree that the Fusion is not above the Camry or Accord. It is not a segment-buster, but it is very competative for the money.
That being said, I think the Fusion is a great start. Ford justs needs to following the path that Honda and Toyota took. The Camry and Accord didn’t start of as the standard of their segment. They were constantly refined until they became the cars that all other cars are judged against.
Considering the fusion is less than two years old, if Ford constantly puts resources behind the Fusion, it can grow into the Camry/Accord killer that everyone seems to want Ford/GM to produce right out of the box.
I guess we’ll see in a few years if Ford has the time and focus (no pun intended) to make this happen.
RF:
Are you laying down a challenge to the TTAC community to help Ford discover new market categories that they could plunder with bold moves to grow revenues? If so, here are a few ideas to kick off the conversation…
1. Lincoln Executive: basically a Fairlane peoplemover with 3 rows each of 2 big, comfy leather captains chairs and an interior that evokes an Orient Express type first class railcar. Shoehorn in the 4.4L Yamaha V-8 and AWD, which will fit given the vehicle is based on the XC90 platform. Style like that concept truck they showed off last January.
2. Mercury Cougar: An extended wheelbase Mustang 4 seat coupe that evokes early 70’s style – remember the taillights that lit up sequentially towards the side of the vehicle? RWD, V-8, but with a unique, luxurious interior. No vinyl roof this time.
3. Mustang Stripper: ship Mustangs with no paint (primer only), no carpet, no seat coverings, no audio system, and winter tires on plain, black wheels. Let tuners and buyers individualize as they please and beat Scion at their own game. If it works, do the same with the F150.
4. Ranger squared: Engineer a small pickup/SUV to be highly flexible and customizable. Work with tuners/aftermarketers to develop a version for every need:
· Surfer version as a 4 seat convertible with roll bars that accommodate surfboards
· Carpenter/tradesman version as a small van
· Antique-hauler for middle aged women put off by the Rendezvous and Element
· Ranchero version as a very stylized pickup for urban cowboys
· Off road Bronco 4X4 version to compete with Jeep, H4, Xterra
Introduce a new version every 3 months to keep interest high.
5. FusionSpeed: Take the drivetrain from the MazdaSpeed 6 (Turbo I-4 and AWD) and tune it for economy and driveability. Upgrade tires and suspension, but don’t compete with WRX, compete with I-4 Accord/Camry/Sonata and blow their doors off. Offer the package at its variable cost, i.e. about $1,500 above base and watch people flock to showrooms.
Cowbell,
Ford could have and should have done that with the Taurus in the 80s and 90s and the Focus since 1999 but they didn’t and haven’t.
I think it speaks volumes to how forward minded Toyota and Honda are compared to the WWII era confined mindset and productivity of Ford and GM. Having seen production floors from both domestic and “import” manufacturers, I’m suprised it took this long to come to this. Ford needs a massive paradigm shift from top to bottom (bold move?) and that’s not the way they are headed.
I left the industry in 2001 and hindsight has proven much better than 20/20.
Replace the Fusion with the Iosis. That is Ford's last chance to create a radical new segment buster!
If Ford doesn’t have more then one of the Bronco’s that is in that picture above this, then I just saw that same vehicle on display today. They absolutely should bring that vehicle to the market. But it must look exactly the same on outside and the inside and have that same leather interior. Maybe put a back seat in it, adjust where that spare tire is, and ditch that nitrous bottle. Offer a V8 too..
If anyone wants to see it, it’s in building # 16:
http://www.oklahomastatefair.com/maps.asp
They had one of these there too and it looked good(it’s really small), but I think it’s called something else now? I think that would sell well if it was sporty.
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z10105/Ford_Iosis/default.aspx
I think the main problem with the Fusion is that Ford dumbed it down too much. The Mazda 6 has been praised everywhere for its fun to drive dynamics. The Fusion, not so much. It has been praised for being fun to drive compared to past and present Ford products, but that’s damning with faint praise. I understand they wanted to hit a lower pricepoint than the Mazda 6, but what they should have done was kept the fun to drive chassis dynamics the same, and just decreased the interior quality. The Fusion should have been just as fun to drive as the 6, just less luxurious and thus less expensive. It would have been a better value and thus a better hit.
My wife just about fell out of her seat when she saw that Bronco. I understand you can’t build “concepts,” but give us something close. I drive a Freestyle, but it’s our “appliance” car and I like it. However, the domestics are going to have to go beyond quiet competence and stretch a bit. It’s not as if Toyota and Honda are going to completely stumble allowing GM and Ford back into the race.
Cowbell nailed it. Ford and the others need to abandon any notion of a “big splash” silver bullet vehicle and adopt the humble yet persistent and disciplined, long-term Hyundai strategy, that is, copy the Japanese class leaders, make incremental improvements, and occsionally beat the leaders at their own game of reliability, safety, fuel efficiency, and design integrity. Now that would be a Bold Move. And only Detroit false pride is preventing it.
It’s ironic but if Ford made just one or two “bold moves” it would likely be in a better position to challenge Toyota (and even with all the talk of the Koreans and the other Japanese manufacturers, this is the company you go after)
1. Kill the entire Lincoln-Mercury system: yes, face the dealer lawsuits but you need to pare back your retail network as much as you need to pare back your production. Look at the per store car sales of Toyota or Honda.
2. Allow your best Ford dealers to aquire a Lincoln franchise and make them build a separate facility like Toyota demanded of Lexus dealers back in the late `80’s.
3. Stop the bleeding: forget about getting share back for a few years, stabilize the losses so you can find that “profitable share” balance. Then you can worry about reclaiming your territory.
4. Build good cars that everyone can afford. This is where Henry started, he built a good car with good quality materials and then priced it to allow everyone access to it. This is Ford’s “soul”, it’s “animus” not the GT, not the Mustang or whatever. Pistonheads love the glitz but market share is built by people who don’t give a second thought to their cars (until it breaks or they need a new one). Been in a Toyota store lately? Anything there get your automotive mojo going? Honda? Not exactly a hotbed of extreme design. Does Ford need some buzz? You bet. It probably has the products (and now even the powertrains) to get it done. All they need is some refinement and a little pizazz.
5. Turn good cars into great cars: Freestyle/500 are good cars. They are honest and reliable and are far and away the most versatile cars in their segments. They need a horsepower boost, a little cosmetic surgery and about a g-note of interior materials refinement. Fusion. I don’t know where everyone gets that the Fusion is a failure. It has helped Ford improve its car market position (most of Ford’s share loss is on the truck side). It maintains most of the good out of the Mazda and improves it by making it roomier for American tastes (again, it is no coincidence that every new Camry and Accord gets bigger). It simply needs a nicer V6. Focus? Get the Euro version over here STAT. B-Car? a necessary product for these gas-starved times but anyone remember the 70’s and 80’s. We were all supposed to be driving fuel-sipping breadboxes 25 years ago. Care to examine where the market went between 1982-2003?
Robert,
The guy who said “history is bunk” was probably drunk in the same bar with the guy who said “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”
CJ
Couple of scenarios:
Let’s assume for the moment that Ford and GM survive in some form. This is likely to happen, we just don’t know what that form will be. They will not go away completely, although some car lines will certainly disappear. Next, we can pretty much bet there will be some people (several million) who will ALWAYS buy what they perceive to be an “American car,” you pick the make and model–doesn’t really matter in this scenario. Then the trick for GM/Ford to accomplish is to build the models those people want, whether it is a truck, a family hauler or, as a septuagenarian friend of mine prefers, a Buick Roadmaster. This creates a much smaller U.S. auto industry in what is perhaps the right place in the market: delivering the kinds of cars they are actually do reasonably well for the average driver who doesn’t care about the latest whizz-bangs and electronic toys. These folks will get a new car/truck/family hauler every few years and GM/Ford combined might sell 1.5 to 2 million vehicles a year. Not a bad volume if you pay attention to details and have a company sized to function at that sales volume.
Then there’s the Japanese (and Koreans, for that matter).
They are watching GM/Ford implode, the UAW collapse, and seeing their own market share increase as they deliver cars and trucks people want to buy. They are also waiting. Waiting for more layoffs, more factories shut down, further decreases in market share, and bankruptcy filings. Then they begin buying up factories at fire sale prices. They bring them up to their standards and increase manufacturing in the U.S., using former UAW workers but without unions. Japan, Inc, may or may not actually acquire GM/Ford, but they win the battle by claiming territory and builiding and selling products that people actually want. They become, in effect, the domestic auto industry.
Now combine these two scenarios and you have a very different U.S. auto industry in which GM/Ford (and maybe even DCX) are just some of the players on the field.
Japan, Inc., sees the battle for market dominance extending way beyond the U.S., something Detroit is incapable of doing. They want to be the world leader. As GM and Ford contract, the U.S. has the excess manufacturing capacity to help support Japan’s goal and ensure that it gets the lion’s share of a huge, relatively affluent market, which funds their expansion elsewhere.
There’s a lot of other elemets to this, but I thought I’d throw it out on the table.
“In order to survive, Ford must lure non-Ford buyers into the fold.” – RF
Amen to that. Unfortunately, burned customers have long memories. People went to foreign makes for a reason and, often enough, that reason was “screwed by” GM or Ford.
That’s us. There are several Fords I like and was actively considering for purchase this summer.
I like the looks of the Five Hundred and Ford gave it a contemporary engine but it’s bigger than I wanted in a sedan.
First, I checked relaibility on the Focus and eliminated it on that basis. Then, I proposed to my wife that we consider the Fusion as a nice, reasonablye economical mid-size sedan or that we consider a hybrid Escape (a good price for a real hybrid SUV or maybe a gasser I4 Escape).
She looked at me like I was nuts. “Don’t you remember how Ford treated us before? No way.”
Well, I do remember but, based on product, I was willing to give them another chance. But my wife wouldn’t and how many others won’t?
We’ve known, for years, that it’s cheaper to keep a customer than to win a new one. It seems that it’s also easier to win a new customer than win an old one back. That’s probably why Toyota seems to take quality problems with the Camry v-e-r-y seriously (however the people I know with ’07 Camrys are perfectlyy happy with their cars).
I did not press the issue and go to Ford, we bought another used Toyota.
In fact, here’s an idea for Billl and Alan: go through all your old correspondence from people who said they’d never buy another Ford again as long as they lived (aim for letters at least 8 years old, mine is 13 or so). Maybe, given the right circumstances, they’re willing to reconsider Ford. Send them a letter expressing regret for the previous experience, some information highlighting your new products, a non-transferable coupon for $xxxx off a new Ford (on top of all other applicable give-backs) AND give their new Ford an extra year and 12K miles each on the bumper-to-bumper and powertrain warranties.
dhathewa
I put an employeee suggestion in with that idea 2yr ago. [I think they laughed at it] imagine that ,GM admiting they made mistakes.Now theres something you can laugh at.
The road to bankruptcy is paved with dominoes. RF made a crucial point many Watches ago re GM; once the bulk of the public believe that GM/Ford is going down they will desert the brand in droves and in effect seal the fate of the company(s). We're not there yet. I agree about the need for exciting product, but i think psychological factors could be more important.
One is the above perception regarding failure of the company, the other is patriotic. I don't know about you guys, but when i hear these ******** from other countries standing on OUR SOIL (UN building) and berating our country i get seriously pissed off. I know this is a thin thread but if this country gets in a post911 mood again, it could carry over to buying truly American cars and telling the foreigners to kiss off.
Maybe an ad showing the new F150 crushing a few foreign cars would light that fire. Wouldn't it be ironic if foreigners ended up being the salvation of the American car industry!
Ford, GM or DCX could write me a letter and send me an apology, and even try to make up for the past by sending me checks (plural) for the money spent which in no way should have been spent by me on their crap in the past, along with an upgraded “warrantee” and special non-transferrable bonus discount coupons and do you know what I would do?
I’d laugh, send it back to them with a note telling them that they’d better go buy some KY jelly because my next sentence would be letting them know where they could SHOVE their entire letter/coupon/warrantee.
I got burned and continually – let’s be honest – made a fool of by the big 3 (and AMC), their dealers and their worthless warantees for 30 YEARS. Obviously, I was most certainly NOT alone in this, by reading many many stories .
Nope. Toyota and possibly Honda for me in future, maybe another manufacturer if they can prove to be BETTER THAN not “nearly as good as”.
Anymore, I’m not sure what Ford could do to really turn things around. It seems they would have be able to jettison enough staff, especially the middle layer cruft, just to be able to change the internal corporate philosphy in order to truly compete again.
For example, Ford has a nasty history of having serious problems with their products that they simply just ignore or do little about for a long time. One of these big issues is where the Crown Victoria and similar cars will catch fire due to a fuel tank puncture in a read-end accident:
http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/
Then there is the infamous AX4S transaxle, which was installed in the Ford Taurus from 1991 to 2003, Lincoln Contenental from 1991-1994 and also in the Windstar vans from 1995-2000. After that they replaced it with the AX4N, which according to Wikipedia is supposed to be more robust. Ford has TSB’s on the AX4S for serious issues all the way up to 1999:
http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=100&did=564
With track records like that in their bread-and-butter products it’s little wonder I see “This is my last Ford” in so many online reviews.
Building weird stuff is a high stakes gamble – ironically the less desperate you are the more likely you can build a segment buster because A: you’ve got development cash to burn, and B: if it fails, it won’t ruin the company.
If the choices are two: 1: Gamble on weird stuff, or 2: Be like Mike (hyundai) and emphasize constant institutional improvement, how about a Clintonian “third way?”
Copy the most successful segment busters.
I would argue that the Dodge Magnum falls into the segment buster category: Muscle wagon. (The idea is not new. GM tried building some experimental GTO and 442 Station wagons in ’72 and offered them to magazine testers, and they offered the SS package on the Malibu wagon in ’73 for reals, but no one took the bait).
How about a Wagon based on the Mustang – two doors, wagon layout would allow better rear head and legroom – maybe like the old Volvo P series. Allows rear buckets to recline – can carry 4 adults on long trips. Could be a new “Cougar.” Stripper base version only $17,900.
OR turn Crown Vic into a Magnum knock off – but separate frame allows much greater towing capacity, more rugged chassis – alternative to full size SUV in terms of hauling/towing capacity.
Turn Escape into an Element-ish vehicle. Eliminate rear drive option to make a very low, flat floor. Copy everything even down to the hose-able floor. Perhaps eliminate the hood and have a radical tilting front a pillar for engine access. Call it Ford-square. Perfect urban delivery vehicle with hip ironic cachet – maybe it would look like a ’60s cab forward van but with windows.
Turn Windstar into Pacifica-ish vehicle with 6 captain’s chairs – higher luxury content = higher profit.
Turn Focus into “hot hatch” tuner car more like upcoming Dodge Hornet.
Or an new segement: factory mini-motor home.
How about a mini motor home made entirely in house? This would be a high profit vehicle with the requisite toilet, stove and fridge for retiring boomers who yearn to hit the road – designed to sleep only two so it needn’t be so big – based on the Econoline – taller but without the extra width of current mini Winnies and without the dually rear axle – no “shuttle car” need be towed behind since it’s not a mega cruiser.
So….does anyone else get the idea from these and other editorial comments that there is a LOT of bad blood out there with GM and Ford? One comment here dating back to experiences 13 or more years ago. Downsizing is the only opportunity for the big 2. Let them boil in it. It would seem that if somehow they were to build the best vehicles tomorrow they would have to maintain it for 10 years or more before it made a significant difference.
dhathewa: Unfortunately a (relatively) small check and extra year of warranty won’t do it.
Arggh!
The frustrating this is Ford has almost everything they need. Sell Land Rover. Keep Aston Martin and Jaguar. Eliminate Mercury/Lincoln. Keep the Lincoln Towncar and sell it through Ford dealerships as “the Lincoln Towncar.” Offer the Mercury/Lincoln dealerships the chance to become a Ford, Mazda, Volvo or Jaguar dealership. If they don’t want it – start writing checks.
Bring the European Fords over, build the Bronco on the top of the page. The Fusion, Focus will be radically “redesigned” ie they will be European cars that meet American standards.
Keep Mazda the way it is.
Volvo is the new luxury division, it has performance aspects (R) and the S80 is an old person’s car already to replace Lincoln. Volvo will compete directly with the C, E, A4, A6, 3 and 5 series. Offer a version of the V70 with AWD and priced competitively to Subarus. This will be the new segment, nicely designed wagons that offer the features of an SUV, but aren’t an SUV. Better mileage, safety, utility.
Hopefully reposition Jaguar sold alongside of Aston Martin as a competitor to Porsche/high-end Mercedes, BMW and Audis.
K.
Amen to the diesel Bronco. As for a segment buster saving them though, I don’t see it. Even the Magnum/300c only sold like 300,000 units/year at the peak. Ford has to replace the ~900,000K/year sales they lost from the SUV/truck market and with lower profit margins. Its going to take several segment busters that are continuously improved with 2-3 year refreshes and 5 year product cycles over the course of many product cycles just to establish some stability in market share.
“The company has too many layers, the company is too bureaucratic, and it takes too long to get things done.â€
This I just do not understand. It’s simple, or should be if you’re a CEO/Chariman named Ford — just keep firing executives until the ones left are giving you their full attention and support, with a keen sense of urgency.
What’s hard about that?
SherbornSean: I’m with you 100% on the Ranger thing. I’ve been thinking about that for a while now..
The Ranger is a Great. Little. Truck. My girlfriend has a ’94. it’s purple, manual transmission, manual windows and locks, and I still love it..
The ranger is in a good place right now, in that it’s still the only “little” truck that’s still little. the problem is that it gets “big truck” fuel economy. What happened to that diesel that was going into the Bronco concept? Speed isn’t important. It’s not like folks want to drag race these things.
Easiest solution: fix the fuel economy, and add more color options.
I love your idea of a surfer friendly convertable Ranger. Heck, I’d buy one, and I’m in Wisconsin. Make it the Ford Jeep Wrangler!
Come on Ford, this is a truck with potential. don’t kill it off.
radimus: For example, Ford has a nasty history of having serious problems with their products that they simply just ignore or do little about for a long time. One of these big issues is where the Crown Victoria and similar cars will catch fire due to a fuel tank puncture in a read-end accident:
http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/
Sorry, but websites from trial lawyers who use “grieving families” as a front are hardly a credible source of information. Every accident I’ve read about that resulted in an explosion occurred after a VERY high-speed collision…in one case in Arizona, the stopped Crown Victoria patrol car was hit by a vehicle traveling at 75-80 mph. That is a tremendous impact.
Even the Town Car limo in the one story on the website (dealing with the death of three sisters) was hit on an interstate by a drunk driver, who, in all likelihood, was traveling at least at 65 mph and undoubtedly didn’t even brake before striking the limo.
How many vehicles can survive that sort of collision?
Quote:
The company has too many layers, the company is too bureaucratic, and it takes too long to get things done.â€
This I just do not understand. It’s simple, or should be if you’re a CEO/Chariman named Ford — just keep firing executives until the ones left are giving you their full attention and support, with a keen sense of urgency.
What’s hard about that?
Answer
Because the one that is left will be the one that told you what you want to hear.
Howard
I would LOVE to see Ford build some weird shit.
Lets face it – Toyota doesn’t build a viable sports car anymore – Ford could easily fill that Niche with an affordable, practical, fun (meaning under 3000 lbs with a high revving inline 4), RWD car that the ricer kids could buy and drift into fire hydrants.