dr511scj

This is so packed with half-truths it's hard to know where to start. Half truth: CV is a "car from the 70s" Truth: While the Panther platform originated in MY 1979, virtually every aspect of the car dates from 1998 or later: Styling -- 1998 (too old, of course), PI SOHC 2V engine -- 1999 (should at least have a 3V option if not some DOHC 4Vs), Rear suspension and brakes -- redone within the last decade, front suspension, redone for 2003. Half truth: Ford is too stupid to "understand" the market Truth: The volume of the CV/GMQ/TC niche has limited by CAFE standards for over twenty years. If Ford sold a "hot" Panther at a reasonable cost-plus price point (not the bloated MSRPs necessary to maintain the current price structure, but a price point that represented actual amortized costs and fair profits), sales would be brisk. But the MPG hit would cut into the sales of other, more profitable models because Ford would have to sell more high MPG models to keep its CAFE average compliant. CAFE also forced Ford to channel large vehicle buyers into trucks and SUVs. And so Ford consciously starves the Panther because its volume is artificially limited by regulations (note: PIs don't count against CAFE, so it's unclear why FoMoCo doesn't build a Hemi-killer for the boys in blue). And it's also unclear why Ford doesn't exploit the E-85 FFV loophole to allow a more competitive, restyled Panther to reclaim some marketshare. Half truth: The Japanese would do better. Truth: How many rugged BOF V8s have you seen from Tokyo lately. Sure, Ford needs to improve CV power, economy and styling--all without losing the unique toughness and reliability advantages of the Panther's easy-to-repair BOF construction. But given Ford's cash crunch and the mounting pressure in Congress to drastically increase CAFE averages, I suspect they'll just let the Panther starve. That's sad.

Well said! Funny that Mazda can build the CD3's progenitor in Michigan but Ford's B-school geniuses can't manage to do the same. Maybe when managment is offshored, the myopic planners will realize they should have fought harder to keep jobs in the U.S.A. Meanwhile, Ford's commitment to cost cutting exceeds its commitment to its American workforce. All of this shortsightedness just plays into the hands of the Japanese, who are about 90% of the way toward convincing Americans that their "transplant" products are more "American" than Ford's. Toyota assembles Camrys in America hand-over-fist while Ford kills Atlanta and its Number two selling car of all time. Not much about Ford to be proud of anymore.

Flat Rock and Mexico are the only two places in the whole Ford empire where the CD3 could be built at a profit? And how is it that DCX builds three-shifts of Calibers at Belverdere, Illinois, without going to the poor-house? BTW, does Ford have any moral obligations to its American workers? Or in search of the sacred "margin" should they just off-shore everything (engineering to Japan, Korea and India, assembly to China . . . advertising and customer service to India (after all, they speak English, don't they?) . . . ? What if everyone in American business followed Ford's lead? "[O]nly the truly, deeply, challenged would hack on a company swimming in red ink for protecting its profit margin." Maybe Mulally or Fields ought to repeat that "classic" when they sit down with Gettlefinger . . . .

This is controversial? It's about 98% of the "word-of-mouth" campaign the Japanese invaders have waged against Detroit (aided and abetted by the willing accomplices at Consumer Reports and in the elite automobile enthusiast-oriented media). Toyota even used to run a commercial featuring a rusty Ford Pinto in the background, in contrast to the liberated 'feeling" that a new Toyopet something-or-other would bring! Remember kids, PERCEPTION IS NOT REALITY! Perception is . . . for lack of a better description . . . a fuzzy, partially subjective opinion about reality, which may or may not be accurate.

But it's still too hard to get back in there for anyone over about 25 years of age, over 200 lbs, or 6'0" in height. Besides, that guy with the laptop looks like a geek . . . who'd want to ride with him? That woman folded the seat forward to avoid having to . . . . (that folded seat, BTW, shows what you have to climb over to get in back of a Freestyle) And although overcapacity is a problem, given the Japanese poaching in the market (not to mention Ford's tardiness in keeping up with market innovations), the larger issue affecting the whole market is that minivans typically lack panache and robust images. SUV drivers are "sporty," independent and adventurous. The same person in a minivan is just a transportation bargain-hunter (the most mobile space for the least operational cost). And a single guy in a minivan is one of those folks your mama warned you about . . . For the "Fairlane Van" to have success, it's got to capture some of the "frisky toughness" of an SUV along with the utilitarian practicality of a minivan. That's a job that nobody's perfected, yet.

You are probably correct with respect to the traditional minivan customer. On the other hand, "boxes" such as the Scion xB and the Honda Element suggest that the "garageable van" market is ripe for some breakout moves. The main aesthetic distinction I see in the "Fairlane van" model is that it has a more "important" looking front clip (not unlike a truck/suv/old-school station wagon), instead of a traditional minivan's abbreviated hoodline. Ever since the days of Chrysler's Airflow (excluding, of course, the old and new Beetles and the Porsche 911) prominent front clips have garnered extra attention in the market place. Too bad Ford hasn't figured out a way to make that "third row" accessible and comfortable for FULL-SIZED adults. That would truly be a "Bold Move!"

You are correct, Sir. However, the sales succes of SUVs, four-door coupes (e.g. Mazda RX-8, Saturn Ion) and four-door SuperCab/Club Cab/Extended Cab pickups tends to prove that fashion and "image" are sometimes more important than pure functionality. This is a univeral truth that extends beyond mere automobiles. If it wasn't, sales of such esoteric items as "ripped" jeans and spike-heeled women's shoes would also sell in much smaller numbers.

You hit it right on the mark, Sir!

Question: How many "Americans" does it take to reskin a Japanese car that's already been in production for several years and build it in a low-wage Mexican plant? (not counting all the bureaucratic committees who decided to call Lincoln's CD3 the "Zephyr" . . . no . . . make that the "MKZ") Question 2: How many "Americans" actually work at Hermosillo? Would it even be enough to fill one of Mulally's "Dreamliners?" Question 3: Doesn't it seem a little bit odd that one can buy a Mazda6 assembled at Flat Rock, Michigan with UAW labor (i.e. fellow United States TAXPAYERS), while Ford's version of basically the same sled has to swim the Rio Grande, allegedly just so Ford can turn a profit? What's wrong with that picture? (Okay, so there were two questions) Questions 5 & 6: Bill Ford's a big-time environmentalist--so does that Mexican plant live up to U.S. environmental and safety standards? And what about the supplier plants it supports South-o-th'-Border?

Really? Toyota built crap like Tempo, Escort, EXP, exploding Pintos, killer Explorers (featuring Bridgestone tires), Iacocca's "little jewel" -- Mustang II (which came in 6th place in a six-way Car & Driver "Super Coupe" shoot-out back in 1974), 1996 Taurus, Contour (which describes what it did to the spines and legs of tall people who mistakenly ventured into the back seat), J Mays' "poser" retro Thunderbird, Festiva (although not really a Ford production), the collapsing-roof "O.J." Bronco, Grenada, LTD II, Elite, Mercury Bobcat, the two-seat Mercury Capri (courtesy of our Australian mates), Mercury Villager minivan, the grossly underpowered 2003-04 Mercury Marauder, the integrated-head Falcon 6, the 2.3 HSC (grandchild of the Falcon 6), the 1.6 CVH, the 6.0 PowerStroke (actually an International product), the 2.0 Mazda diesel (used in Escorts and Tempos, begging the question "which part of the whole was worse?"), 1980-82 Thunderbird/Cougar, the 255 (Windsor-style) V8, the pre-PI 2V 4.6 Modular V8 (great block, door-stopss for heads, the 2V 4.6 PLASTIC INTAKE MANIFOLD . . . . Who knew? I'm sure the 30,000+ Americans who are losing their Jobs on a sped-up basis will all celebrate and drive a CD3 on the way to cash the buyout check or the job bank . . . . BTW, how many Kentucky-assembled Camrys is Toyota selling each month? Excellent points. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. While you wait, check out the soothing environmentally-friendly music over at Bill Ford's new little corner of the WWW.

Which other brand has the combination of TRD support, low price and effective marketing (e.g. Scion gives the kids a 100-page free magazine packed with ideas and "lifestyle" at auto shows, while Ford and GM hand out cheap folders) Sorry, I didn't realize you knew "everything." Of course, plenty of serious tuners go for Supras, JDM Skylines, DSMs and EVOs. Hondas are cheap, but they're hardly the best. Honda engines have a flimsy open deck design that requires an aftermarket insert to stabilize the cylinders for high boost. And even the S2000 suffers from poor quality valvesprings that have lead to a number of blown engines as they lose their tension. Agree, but Scion certainly has made huge waves in a short period of time as a result of Toyota's marketing efforts. Just walk around SEMA. I completely agree, although you know that I'd add the CD3 to the disappointment list, notwithstanding all of the little "plant-at-capacity" spin.

Still missing the point. It was the GERMANS. To wit: "Eaton acceded to an acquisition of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz. . . .Eaton, now a lame duck, had basically surrendered Chrysler's power base. . . . From the start, the culture gap made DaimlerChrysler's post-marriage period of adjustment more difficult than that of any other merger around.. . . . No sooner was the merger announced last May than Schrempp's phalanx of strategic thinkers began issuing reams of organizational flow charts. . . . Chrysler managers thrived on spotting opportunities and going for them, if necessary chucking previous plans as if they were gum wrappers. And here they were, trapped in Stuttgart's planning hell, bristling at constantly being reminded what to do. . . . Even before the merger, Lutz and Castaing had resigned, and the camaraderie was fading. " "Of course, there is that famous 'merger of equals' that turned into a coupe de main (a sudden attack in force) and resulted in a DaimlerChrysler takeover. That was turning into a disaster, too, until Daimler sent over Dieter Zetsche . . . ." On the initial set of results for DCX "DaimlerChrysler's revenues rose 10% in the second quarter, to $38.5 billion, but its profits were the same $1.53 billion as the year before. The company had promised that profits would grow faster than revenues. It was an enormous, and costly, misimpression. " "U.S. investors fled from the stock after Standard & Poor's Corp. banished it from the S&P 500 index because the company wasn't incorporated in America. By late March, the percentage of U.S. shareholders had fallen from 43% on Day One to 25%. High-profile defections of Chrysler execs fed the image of German control. Two vice-presidents, engineering boss Chris Theodore and manufacturing specialist Shamel T. Rushwin, quit to join Ford Motor Co."

Petersen went to the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving: "A dedicated car buff, he startled fellow executives two years ago by taking a performance-driving course from Grand Prix Driver Bob Bondurant. More than 100 of his colleagues have since followed that lead to improve their knowledge of car handling. " That fact alone ought to be enough to establish his "car guy" cred. One wonders if successors like Red Poling even knew how to drive a car for themselves . . . .

Jack's opinion is hardly universal. I'm sure Jack hated the poor way "Jaguar" was running Ford's F1 tradition into the ground against the Schumacher juggernaut. And regardless of whether F1 is a good value or not anymore, it was partially responsible for Ford being about the second most recognized brand in the world. Still, the only point in mentioning F1 was to rebut the inferrence that Toyota lacked any "car guys" with power. To be fair, Elliott's Thunderbird also benefitted "for the sake of the show" from some rules changes BEFORE he started winning. Moreover, now that we have common templates and, soon, the Car of Tomorrow, brand specific rules adjustments seem to be less frequent. And don't forget that Toyota's NASCAR V8 benefits from everything NASCAR gave Ford, GM and DCX previously, so even in the hands of the losers Toyota managed to sign, given Toyota's huge financial resources, they should have their share of success almost from day one. (I'm not even going to be too surprised if Toyota pulls off a win at Daytona in their first Cup season--NASCAR certainly seems to want them to win quickly) Tuners don't give a crap about CR or JDP. I've never talked to one that mentioned CR or JDP as a reason why they purchased a popular tuner model. Tuners want cheap, high-tech cars (not pushrod piles like the old Tempo/Escort or even SOHCs) that can be easily and cheaply insured, can be tuned toward big results, and which have a huge wellspring of available parts, body kits, JDM bits, etc. These cars tend to develop positive reputations on the sport compact scene. And the whole point of Scion was to allow 'Yoda to expand downmarket without any ill effects on the Mother brand. Scion has probably spent about 1000 times what Ford does in pursuit of the tuner market (and to wean kids off of Honda). Still, the point of bringing it up was to illustrate that somebody at Toyota believes the tuner market is essential to "youth market" success, not to evaluate the campaign's effectiveness. Still it seems a lot more tuners are building Scions than Foci. The Waltrip truck is completely stupid as a marketing gimmick. But it does point out that somebody at Toyota is making an effort to lure American racing fans, and that it isn't the province of politically-correct, hemp & Earth-shoe-wearing, "sensible," "sustainable," anti-high-performance enviromentalists in its executive boardroom (think Japanese clones of Bill Ford . . . .). Remember, the point of the post wasn't to say Toyota's outreach to the "car guys" was optimal. It was to rebut the suggestion that Toyota simply ignores those "mullet heads."

Long after the Germans took over . . . read my post CAREFULLY. Better yet, read Lutz's book.

No. You hate the Panther. That's reason enough to not pick you for it.

It's just a good thing for us that they didn't understand NASCAR enough to sign cult heros like Dale Earnhardt, Incorporated's "Dale, Jr." and instead settled for hayseed losers like Michael Waltrip and disloyal chumps like car owner Bill Davis and the old has-been, Dale Jarrett. (Maybe they were confused on which "Dale" they were getting . . . .) But they will spend enough money to get noticed and to buy their way into the heart of American popular culture.

Agreed. It's stupid. That's why they'll probably do it. Why not sell Lincoln-Mercury to someone who has a clue . . . . (Of course the Volvo-ization of Lincoln doesn't stand a chance in taking market share from the revitalized Cadillac, much less Lexus. Lincoln is on the slide into near-luxury status and bundling it with Volvo just greases the skids)

"Lutz built the great team that saved Chrysler in the 1990s. He fought with the charismatic Lee Iacocca, and they didn't love each other, but they were a team. His last great car battle at Chrysler was to bring out the PT Cruiser, which became immensely successful. Lutz was the obvious candidate to replace Iacocca when he retired, but Iacocca delayed his retirement. Anyway, no one that Iacocca knew would ever be good enough for him. When Iacocca finally brought in Bob Eaton from GM to run Chrysler, Lutz became Eaton's loyal number two." See "Maximum Bob v. Red Ink Rick" "In the early 1990s, Chrysler had terrible customer service and press relations, with a history of innovation but a present of outdated products [Thanks Lee Iacocca]. Its market share was falling, and its fixed costs and losses were high. Bob Lutz, then the president, wanted Chrysler to become the technology and quality leader in cars and trucks -- a clear, globally applicable vision. A program of cultural change, Customer One, was built around it. * * * * The results were impressive: overhead was cut by $4.2 billion in under four years, the stock price has quadrupled, and the company reversed its slide into bankruptcy and became profitable. A completely new and competitive line of cars or trucks has appeared each year since. New engines produce more fuel economy and power as new cars provide more comfort, performance, and space. They did this with the same people, but working in different ways. " Chrysler's 1990s revival "Before the 1996 deal [takeover by Daimler-Benz], Chrysler was one of the most successful and profitable auto companies in the world. In 1994 it approached $4 billion dollars in net profit, had a climbing market share and a reputation for speed in finding the market's sweet spots." "In the words of the former Chrysler chief executive Robert Eaton, Lutz was 'largely responsible for a monumental transformation in the way Chrysler develops, builds and markets its products.'" "Lutz Spills His Guts--On Chrysler" "Car guys" aren't infallible, but to suggest that they haven't benefitted the industry is preposterous. Maybe your complaint is more against DCX's German managers than it is against "car guys."

Ford will never beat 'Yoda by copying them. On the other hand, 'Yoda is in Formula One (unlike Ford), will spend a billion taking over NASCAR, is competing in Grand Am/ALMS(see the details), has pumped huge coin into its TRD parts operation (see the details), has turned Scion into a "tuner" cult hit virtually overnight (see the details), offers a Darrell Waltrip Edition Tundra with a variable-valve-timing DOHC V8 (see the photo; read the details) . . . . So there must be some "car guys" in the house, somewhere.

Amen, brother! Although I'd like to see a few more 4V V8 options in Panthers, trucks (like the Japanese ALREADY have) and Mustang . . . . And where's the cylinder deactivation? Even Honda has it. And why can't they commandeer that Mazdaspeed 2.3 GDI turbo engine ASAP for the Mazda6-based apps that can't swallow a proper V8? (Why should we have to wait for the "maybe, someday" Lincoln 3.5 turbo project?) I doubt the 3.5 Duratec has the proper torque curve to work in F-150.

We all know that you don't believe in the "car guy" theory. But there ARE compelling arguments for it. For example: Cars! Cars! Cars! argues that "At any automaker, the product experts who really understand the fundamentals and finesse involved in developing compelling cars and trucks are a critical resource. Giving these people protection and support against the sometimes numbing influence of finance, purchasing and marketing departments is a key part of the CEO’s job. If the car guys do not receive the appropriate backing, the result is exactly the sort of bland and/or misdirected product malaise that is afflicting Ford today." And another of my regular stops in the blogosphere provides a recent case study about how bona fide "car guys" can make a real, dramatic difference in product. If Mulally is going to be an effective budget cutter, he's got to understand what parts of Ford are essential and he cannot do this without some "car guy" savvy (or at least strong advice from proven "car guys.")

It's called "deterrence." It your car is sporty, but easy pickin's on the street, you'll get a lot of challenges. But if your ride brings overwhelming fire power, surprisingly, you're challenged much less often. Nobody's saying you can't have a lo-po 300 h.p. V8 in a Mustang if you want one. All we are saying is that Ford shouldn't ignore and neglect its customers who want to add a 100+ more and it shouldn't relegate real high performance to the realms of limited-production $60,000-$200,000 supercars that encourage rampant dealer gouging and deprive the vast majority of Ford customers any opportunity to purchase. I don't see how Ford providing better service to its high performance customers adversely affects you. BTW, you'd better not sample a Z06 Corvette or any DCX SRT model or even the upcoming Mazdaspeed3(which will have a better power-to-weight ratio than a Mustang GT, if reports are correct). If you do, 300 in your Mustang won't seem so satisfactory anymore. If you want to feel good about lo-po, go to Bill Ford's new webpage on "American Innovation" (not much pesky high performance or racing stuff there).

The Ford Blog linked to this analysis of the Mulally hire, President Bush's reluctance to meet with the Detroit 3, and of Rick Wagoner's "Hyundai warranty" strategy (Fun reading, although it probably DOES NOT represent the views of the frequent posters here at Blue Oval Forums, and I express NO OPINION as to whether it represents even a plurality of views among those who "follow" the U.S. auto industry) Here's the pull quote: "Ford Motor's top car guy is Derrick Kuzak, vice president of product development for The Americas, a position well below GM Vice Chairman Lutz. And Ford doesn't have a blog like GM's. Ford needs much more than top-ranking car guys and a blog open to customers in order to survive, but they would be good first steps." See also The Ford Blog.

What does that mean? I suspect a number of Ford rodders actually build Fords because it IS different from the Chevrolet majority. But that doesn't mean that Ford, in the face of getting absolutely kicked in crate engines, embarrassed by 100,000 or more Chevrolet-powered "Ford" street rods and at least 20,000 Chevy-powered F-100s, being blown away on probably a thousand oval tracks across America by about a 98:1 ratio of Chevrolets to Fords, having no competitive Ford products in the upper echelons of multi-make professional drag racing (excluding John Force's funny cars--powered by aftermarket Chrysler-style Hemis--and a handful of IHRA Pro Stock racers almost nobody's ever heard of running $100,000 Ford Boss "hemi" mountain motors that no ordinary Mustanger will ever be able to buy) ought to ALSO just lay down as the GM LSx and Chrysler's new Hemi become the dominant hot rod V8s of the future. Given the hundreds of thousands of Modular-powered performance vehicles Ford has built over the past decade, the numbers suggest that if Ford would encourage Modular development in the way Zora Arkus-Duntov suggested for the then new SBC, that it would yield dividends in the aftermarket popularity of these engines . . . and correspondingly of Ford products powered by them. No doubt the engine is highly reliable in stock applications. And when properly built, they will withstand significantly more abuse than any stock-block 5.0. And the basic strength of the block is one reason why it ought to be a more popular engine, but for Ford's inadequate strategy toward the performance market. The 5.7 killed the Camaro? Both the 1993-97 LT1 and newer 1998-up LS1 had superior torque and power to Ford v8s at the similar price point. However, they were installed in poorly-built, impractical, expensive to repair, poorly-designed cars. The lesson there is that even the greatest engine cannot redeem a poorly-executed pile of crap. The 6.8 has never been offered in DOHC or other high-performance form (unlike the Viper V10 or the BBC, for example) and FRPP basically has stopped development of the 385-series 460 (although there are a number of them, based on remanufactured 2-bolt cores, still in the FRPP catalog). But GM and DCX have both continued development of engines larger than 331 cubic inches for street applications. While Ford's multivalve OHC/DOHC technology ought to give them an advantage, Ford has failed to develop the cylinder heads and blocks necessary to take advantage of the competition's reliance on 2V pushrod engines. And while the modular's bore centers are compromised to fit in FWDs that will apparently never be built, if the engines were developed, they would be more than a match for DCX and GM. BTW, I just recently tested a Chrysler 300C SRT-8. The 6.1 Hemi is an awesome engine for a 2V pushrod design and the Chrysler easily pulled harder than a stock Mustang GT or any naturally-aspirated Cobra--despite that it's in a huge luxury sedan (which, incidentally was much nicer than the last Lincoln I tested). When this 6.1 Hemi is installed in the 2008 or 2009 Challenger, no Modular without a significant power adder will be able to keep up (assuming DCX brings in the weight at a reasonable level). Given that Ford sees fit only to permit a few well-heeled customers buy V8s over 300 h.p., it's likely that Dodge owners will be whipping their fair share of Mustangs on a regular basis. Even the upcoming Caliber SRT-4 is likely to slay quite a few unsuspecting Mustangs. I don't even want to think about a new Camaro with an LS7 . . . . Developing the necessary FRPP parts and H.D. RPOs on the Modular is a lot cheaper than starting over from a clean sheet. I'm not really excited about starting all over again. How many incompatible V8s has Ford cooked up over the years. Flathead Y-block MEL FE/FT 289/302/351 Windsor/Boss 302 385-series (including the orphaned Boss 429) 335-series (351 Cleveland, 351M, 400M) Modular Yamaha Lincoln/Jaguar/Thunderbird Constant improvement doesn't mean reinventing the wheel every ten years or less. History suggests that "performance parts and applications would logically follow" impressive V8s is not true unless the right confluence of factors occurs. For example, Chrysler's first hemi ought to have dominated the streets by virtue of its design (albeit a bit heavy and hard to swap into pre-1948 model cars) but it only caught on in professional racing. Why? Because it wasn't cheap and easy to build, in part, because Chrysler didn't follow Zora's advice. Similarly, Studebaker and AMC's early OHC V8s were almost bulletproof, but failed in market appeal because of a lack of performance parts. Cadillac/Oldsmobile's impressive Northstar has lagged in aftermarket development because, until recently, it was never installed in a performance car and it was not developed and marketed as a performance aftermarket V8. And 3/4s of the Ford V8 families I cited above never amounted to squat for high performance because Ford didn't develop parts for them. But even if Ford goes with a new "family V8," it must make certain that it is retrofitable into older Fords and that they follow Zora's advice to develop H.D. and special service (racing) parts for it from the get-go. (and decent crate engines, following the GMPP model). Otherwise, Ford will endure another wasted decade waiting for it to catch on. The simple fact is that there are millions of Modulars out there and unless Ford and FRPP does more to spur interest in them, Chrysler, Chevrolet and maybe even Toyota (depending on what TRD does with the Tundra V8) stand to gain.