By on August 4, 2008

The lines do not in any way represent the sales, stock prices or future viability of these two companies.The Detroit News reports that Ford and GM boffins have spent the last month or so discussing joint-development of engines and powertrains. The usual anonymous sources say GM approached Ford first, and that Dearborn's initial response was "mixed." But the Blue Oval Board of Directors authorized negotiations. The two firms' heads of powertrain development have met at least three times. Neither company has commented on the reports, but analysts point to a jointly-developed six-speed automatic transmission as a sign that I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work. GM is said to be "ahead of Ford on four-cylinder engine development," while the General could learn a thing or two from Ford's Ecoboost program. And then there's the wild card: the plug-in electric – gas hybrid Volt. "If GM is smart [hold the guffaws please], they will proliferate Volt technology," says featured analyst Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics. "Ford has more experience in getting the costs down, and that could really help GM." Or is it that Ford is five years away from a PHEV of its own, and will do anything to get on board GM's moonshot? Or it could be as simple as splitting a development bill or two. Either way, file this under "How the Mighty Have Fallen" and block your nose. This collaboration reeks of desperation.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

23 Comments on “Ford and GM Exploring Engineering Partnership...”


  • avatar
    faster_than_rabbit

    American Leyland, here we come! (insert Katamari Damacy music here)

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Other areas Ford and GM could benefit from combining forces:
    – full size vans: the market for E350/Express is small, and there is no need for two separate platforms for vehicles that are so similar
    – small/midsized pickup: both the Ranger and Colorado are inferior to the Tacoma — again, it’s a small market with little differentiation, in which their combined forces would make for compelling product
    – large, family RWD sedans. They could combine forces to make a large budget platform of the CTS/STS platform, that could underpin a new generation Impala/Holden/LaCrosse and Town Car/Crown Vic.

  • avatar
    BostonTeaParty

    Your chart in the background is the wrong way round….unless you’re predicting success on the endeavour.

  • avatar

    SherbornSean…I see some viability in the first two possibilities, but the third smells bad. While the engineering benefits you cite hold true for all three, the third possibility, especially, is fraught with brand dilution.

    Whereas full-size vans and (to a lesser extent) small pick-ups have less critical brand association with these two manufacturers, Cadillac is the essence of GM, and mid-size pick-ups for both companies have rabid followings. (I assume that you mean the F-150 and Silverado/Sierra.)

    For instance, to share Cadillac’s platforms with Lincoln strikes a fatal blow to the core of the identity and appeal of GM’s luxury brand (and probably to Ford’s, as well). The same goes, in both directions, for F-150 and Silverado/Sierra development.

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    SherbornSean Platform sharing doesn’t look like something either of them need right now, they both have other places to pull platforms from without even having to look at eachother. Engines and Transmissions is where this would make the most sense, especially in these ultra efficient times. They need to get their mpgs up and fast on everything but mostly on the small cars they are lacking.

    I don’t see this going anywhere though, haven’t they had more than a few of these ‘meetings’ in the past few decades that never went anywhere.
    Plus Ford have a substantial survival advantage right now and have been a little smarter than GM over the past few years(Fiesta is coming, the Beat is ummm who knows). How is it that GM has a better 4 banger?

  • avatar
    nudave

    Sort of reminds me of two drowning men desperately clinging to each other in the hope they will float together rather than sink individually.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Maybe Ford will have some decent engines now…

  • avatar
    raast

    Hey, maybe ‘tween the two of ’em, they could come up with head & intake manifold gaskets that are durable. Made in Mexico and China too.

  • avatar
    Ralph SS

    Or, as the Studebaker/Packard merger was described, two drunks helping each other across the road.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Brent,
    Maybe I was unclear. What I meant to suggest was sharing in 3 areas:
    – Vans
    – small pickups (NOT F150/Sliverado)
    – budget priced, large RWD sedans

    Red Barchetta,
    I think you are right, that engines are an excellent first place to look for synergies between the D2 — they can build on their successful partnership to build 6 speed automatics together.

    I was only thinking that if this works, they could combine a few platform teams where their vehicles are challenged because they lack the volumes individually to make the best-in-class.

  • avatar
    KatiePuckrik

    One area which GM and Ford could find synergy is hybrid powertrains. GM could license their hybrid technology to Ford for use in their CUV’s/SUV’s, Fusions etc. This will bring the cost down of GM’s (rather) expensive hybrid powertrains and Ford could refine the technology to make it that little bit better.

    In return, Ford could send a design team from Ford Europe to help Saturn get some dynamic and stylish “Euro” designs (Focus Cabriolet and Mondeo). Let’s face it, GM’s euro designs are pretty poor and Ford’s designs are streets ahead.

    One more area of synergy is combining purchasing departments and buying for both Ford and GM and economies of scale to bring costs downs. In short, they should look at the Renault-Nissan model to see how 2 companies can work together to bring costs down, without merging.

  • avatar
    Dave

    I can see the sense of collaborating on powtertrains and even the chassis, but styling may be stretching it a bit far. Even the Fiat/Ford venture with Fiat building the new Ka off the 500, the one thing not being shared is the body styling.

    GM already has experience of combining Purchasing department (with Fiat on powertrain I think), so that may work. But it would get real interesting if they shared the Finance functions!!!

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Dave,
    Combining Finance departments would really help becuase they could leverage scale economies in the purchase of red ink for filling out financial forms.

  • avatar
    netrun

    I think any nonsense about them sharing technologies between engineering staff is laughable. They use two totally different CAD systems, have completely different org. structures which lead to a lot of “Why am I talking to only a manager?”, and neither of them has any money.

    I say GM is calling to see if Ford has any Toyota hybrid parts they could sell them, you know, cheap.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    Might as well throw Chrysler in, then we can liquidate the whole mess at once.

  • avatar
    RobertSD

    I highly doubt they would consult on anything except engines and other powertrain technology. My guess is that GM is interested in Ford’s control systems for Ecoboost. Rumors are that GM’s not getting the mileage out of their small turbo-4’s that they wanted. Ford is probably interested, if anything, in how much of GM’s Volt technology they can look at. Ford could also be interested in some of GM’s cylinder management technology.

    Ultimately, though, their hybrid programs are in very different places. GM’s skipped a full-mode, eCVT hybrid system design that Ford has developed really well (and no, it is not Toyota’s) and went straight for their new Volt plug-in, which may be everything GM’s hyped it to be. Ford’s next-gen hybrid system showing up at the end of year in the Fusion is relatively inexpensive to manufacture (as opposed to GM’s hybrid efforts) and provides a very good mileage boost, but it won’t have a plug-in system and it isn’t based on Li-on batteries. So, I’m not sure how much Ford would care about GM’s program or GM about Ford’s.

  • avatar
    jaje

    I think the most pressing thought to most of their customers are the Calvin pissing stickers. How should they change to properly reflect the scenario?

  • avatar
    cleek

    Let me guess, The fruits of this partnership will be realized in ……..

    Wait for it….

    2010?

  • avatar
    skor

    Fantastic, now both of them can glom off Mazda.

  • avatar
    Nicodemus

    “American Leyland, here we come! (insert Katamari Damacy music here)”

    To be pedantic, American BMC is more accurate (ie the merger between Austin and Morris).

    Further trainspotter-anorakory would note American Austin begat Jeep.

  • avatar
    Nicodemus

    In Australia, I would consider this a serious proposition. Ford Australia and GM Holden are equally adept at producing (not to mention conceptually identical) good RWD sedans on a shoe-string – in fact the only thing they struggle with are volumes. Producing a common platform and componentry would introduce some much needed economy of scale.

  • avatar
    capeplates

    How long before a take over bid by the Chinese!

  • avatar
    nudave

    Gents, all this boils down to one inescapable fact. America needs, at most, one car company.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
  • theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
  • A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
  • Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
  • Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber