CPManx

It's easy to read too much into the JD Power numbers. Or, put another way, it is hard to glean a lot of meaningful information out of them. Part of it is the oddity of the methodology: "initial quality" covers all kinds of complaints, from annoying cupholders to suspension pieces falling out of the car, and gives them all equal weight. Also, the quality numbers are all so closely bunched together these days that slight statistical variations can make it look like one carmaker has suddenly shot up or down. See this commentary from AutoNews--hardly the most critical voice out there (free registration required): JD Power IQS The most telling lessons here: The US automakers have gotten their act together because they are now essentially indistinguishable from the best of the competition in the eyes of the consumers. And with the closing of the quality gap, it becomes even more important for American makes to shine in terms of design and engineering.

Back to the topic at hand, if I may... Well, in principle the Spark could be a decent Fiesta competitor and the Cruize/Orlando could face off pretty well against the Fiesta/C-Max. But I see several big hurdles for GM. One is build quality. Simply put, Ford has addressed it and GM hasn't yet. Another is product diversity. With the Transit Connect, Project M, range of Fiesta models, and various other rumored products (including the new Ranger), Ford is readying a blitz; GM does not seem to have anything like this kind of range in the works. Finally, there's the matter of corporate reputation. So far the bankruptcy talk has not clearly hurt GM sales that much, but I find it hard to believe that the drastic dealer cutbacks and taint of (very unpopular) government bailout won't steer a lot of customers toward Ford. The big question: Will all of Ford's smart restructuring get them to the point where they can be profitable even if sales stay at 10-12 million a year for the next couple years? If not, all that savvy may not be a lot of help.

Well, I recall the long-in-the-tooth Pinto outselling the full-size Ford in the late '70s, during the 2nd gas crisis. I remember compacts and subcompacts (even mediocre ones--Pintos, 1st-gen Escorts, 4-cyl Fairmonts) selling well while the big LTDs languished on the lots. And for years buyers have been paying premiums to buy the superior design and interior build of the Japanese small cars. Selling well-engineered small cars and trying to squeeze more profit out of them by pushing them slightly upscale makes a lot of sense for Ford (GM and Chrysler, too, but that's a whole other forum). More to the point--what other choice does Ford have?

Hmmm...worth more than Oldsmobile? Than Plymouth? DeSoto? Edsel? I seriously doubt that the Mercury name, shorn of any product, has enough value that anyone would want to create a whole new lineup of vehicles to go with it. Best case scenario is that Mercury Marine would buy the name just to get it off the market.

As usual in these polarized kinds of discussions, reality lies somewhere in between the extremes. Lutz makes two highly disingenuous comments. First, he conflates the new, posted EPA estimates (eg, on the new hybrid trucks) with the old, inflated EPA estimates--the ones that are, and will be, used to calculate fleet averages. Cars won't need to get a real-world 35 mpg; they'll need to get an old-style EPA 35 mpg, which is probably closer to 28 mpg in truth. Second, he ignores that these are fleet averages. Not every car and truck needs to get 35 mpg. No matter what, some heavy-duty trucks will still be available for the (rather small) number of people who are hauling horses (I don't think that's what most Suburban owners are doing). As before, some very high-mileage cars can offset some very low-mileage trucks. Finally, he glosses over the fact that GM managed a 50% increase in CAFE from 1978 to 1985, then managed less than 0% in the next 22 years. Yes, this is a reflection of a market that wanted roomier and more powerful vehicles. But some of the current problems reflect years of engineering priorities that paid little attention to controlling vehicle weight and that ignored the social and political good of steadily improving economy, even when the market isn't screaming for it. On the other hand, Lutz is exactly on target on his key issue, CAFE vs. taxes. Forcing people to buy what they don't want is a lousy way to save fuel, and it makes sense only because it is politically much easier than telling the public the hard truth: Their own preferences are largely responsible for the current situation, and the only way they are going to change those preferences is if the price of gasoline increases significantly. I don't buy the "soak the rich" angle on this--I don't think anyone still believes Detroit is rich. What people do believe in is miracle technologies that will allow them to buy the exact same cars with the exact same performance but--shazam!--40% better mileage. Fundamentally, most people don't really believe in personal responsibility. If gas prices were taxed to reflect our shifting priorities and new sense of the social cost of oil, then people could adjust their behaviors (driving less, maybe?) and buying habits (actually giving priority to economy). The CAFE solution does the opposite, leaving behaviors the same (maybe even encouraging more driving) and leaving buying habits the same (while driving unappealing products onto the market). But as we all know, gas taxes are political suicide. Nobody wants to hear this, no matter how many times the argument comes up.

If the actual US Verve (or whatever it is called for real) keeps most of this look, Ford will suddenly be a big player in the B segment. Clever how the styling sweeps the eye past the odd proportions created by the short hood/forward windshield/long passenger compartment/stubby tail. The whole thing looks very slick. Any word on whether the US will get the 4-door only, or whether we have a shot at the 3- and 5-doors? It would be a shame--and a marketing mistake, imho--to banish the hatches from our shores.

I work in the publishing industry so let me offer a little insider's insight: Idiotic lists like this one, and idiotic ideas like putting the Model T on the list, are designed to provoke readers and get a reaction. In short, to do exactly what is happening here. Writers on the left, like Dan Neil, do it. Writers on the right, like Ann Coulter, do it. If Dan Neil thought he'd get more of a rise by denouncing Edison for helping electrify the country, or Roosevelt for authorizing the a-bomb, or Jefferson for pushing the US farther into Indian territory, he'd probably do it. My advice: Don't take the bait, and don't waste your time trying to figure out some grand liberal conspiracy behind this...just like there's no conservative conspiracy behind the celeb magazines that constantly denounce Britney Spears' wanton ways. It's all about pushing pages.

Well said. But the real challenge Ford faces is that it must really do both--build up sales while cutting costs at the same time--if the company is to survive. There's no option of saving money by delaying product, since Ford already has the oldest product mix in the industry (by most measures). More to the point, falling sales have exacerbated the cost issue by forcing the company to run plants at less than optimal capacity and by piling more and more health care costs onto the shoulders of a shrinking work force and sharply lower US sales. What I, like so many people on BON, find maddening is that it was no secret that these problems were looming. I remember being baffled years ago by Ford's internal debates about how to replace the Taurus--meaning that the second-gen car came out with no plans at all in place for what the third-gen car should be. This time around at least there seems to be some long-range thinking about what platform the next-generation Fusion will use. That's a step in the right direction, toward Business 101. Likewise, cost-cutting issues have been a staple of auto-industry discussions for two decades now. I'm glad to see Ford making progress but am amazed that it took such an extreme crisis to make it happen. I really hope Ford gets to that 10% level, but it's going to take both cost control and appealing product (to rebuild share and transaction prices) to get there.

Hey, have you ever actually read Automobile magazine? I don't agree with the editors' opinions all the time, but it's a smart, clued-in magazine whose opinions deserve to be taken seriously. Incidentally, the print edition called the Flex "appealing" (and its comment on the Camry? "inspiration is still a missing ingredient"). I know it's tempting to blame the media for all the bad news but the truth is that Ford flubbed several aspects of the Flex intro--starting with the silly name and the excessive hype (eg, trumpeting that Ford is going to "define" a market segment that it is entering several years late). It's really tough to tell from press photos but the interior does look like it has some odd detailing, such as the horizontal expanse of fake wood and the coarsely marked, retro-styled speedometer. I think the inherent goodness of the Flex will make it a success, but the public perception of Ford right now is that it is a company going down the tubes. If Mullaly et al hope to turn things around, they need to get both the product and the perception spot on every time--nobody is going to cut them any slack right now.

I see two basic problems with LM. First, it leads to three-way badge enginnering (Explorer/Mountaineer/Aviator, Fusion/Milan/MKZ). Second, it slices the pie too thin: Lincoln is effectively a near-luxury brand these days, and Mercury is...what? Near-near luxury? Premium ordinary? On the other hand, Ford needs all the volume it can get, and Mercury kicks in a decent chunk of sales. So why not axe the Mercury brand but absorb some of the models and adjust the pricing structure as a stopgap measure, with a long-term goal of rebuilding Lincoln into a near-luxury to full-luxury brand? MKZ could go down to $25K. MKS could come in around $35K. If the costs and plant availability work out, a Falcon-based large RWD sedan could take over in the $45K zone. There's more volume at these prices, and they more realistically reflect where Lincoln is right now. The biggest near-term hit would be losing the Grand Marquis so here's a radical suggestion: Why not keep is as a lower-level Lincoln companion to the Town Car as long as TC production hangs on? It could perhaps be very slightly restyled and marketed as a Lincoln Marquis or even a Lincoln Mercury. Honestly, even the revised 2008 Mariner could work as a Lincoln with some smart reworking, including MKX cues, to position it against the RDX and Q5 (would the 3.5 V6 fit?). Farther ahead, the Lincoln-badged version of the Fairlaine (with actual, distinctive sheetmetal), a reworked version of the Mark LT (ditto), and a Lincoln coupe/convertible based on the Mustang would round out the lineup. Not the most elegant solution, perhaps, but it would add some product and marketing clarity in the near term without sacrificing too much volume, and in the long term it would position Lincoln to become more distinct from Ford. Promoting Lincoln-Volvo dealerships (somebody else suggested this) seems smart, too.

All I can say is "Amen." It's nice to hear now that Bill Ford is planning a blitz of new product that will make the company competitive. But since when is being competitive something that a company trots out only in times of emergency? This should be business as usual. You are dead on.

I sure hope Ford will be addressing the concerns/complaints a lot of us have had. Unfortunately, all I've got right now is hope. The Expedition is yet another misguided example of expensive re-engineering hidden behind sheet metal that makes the world think this is just a minor facelift. Worked wonders on the Explorer! Spy shots hint at more of the same with the new Focus & Escape. I hope the spy shots are wrong. Hope. Early photos of the Edge interior suggest it's not nearly as stylish and upscale as the exteror. I hope ths shots are misleading. Hope. As for the Ranger, Crown Vic, Town Car...looks like even hope isn't going to help much there in the next 24 months.

So Bill Ford's epiphany boils down to this: Figure out how to sell cars at a profit in North America. Figure out what all those other parts of the company overseas are doing. Find some people who can, you know, manage stuff and then bring them in to mange the company. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad. Ford's bumbling execs are killing the company and taking its workers down in the process. I know that I'm preaching to the choir here, but how did the Ford family let things stay so bad for so long? Doesn't it pain them to see their equity in the company (not to mention the company itself) shrivel to a meager fraction of what it was a dozen years ago?

Volvo's lineup looks really strong...until you take a close look at what the competition (I'm talking BMW, Merc, Audi esp) are up to. The near-luxury market is adding niche products and more expressive styling; Volvo has some solid products but isn't quite keeping up. First, styling. The S40/V50 is a knockout. The C70 and S80 are missed opportunities--pleasant rather than distinctive, and somehow old looking right out of the box. The C30 looks very promising. Volvo needs to get more of that spirit into the lineup. Second, product spread. The trend is toward crossovers rather than wagons. So where is the XC50 companion to the XC90? This should be on the market by now, but it seems like it's nowhere close. Again, the C30 is a big step in the right direction, but where are the coupe/convertible/sportwagon versions? A full generation off, by most accounts. A few real technology showcases (high performance, high economy, truly innovative safety advances) would help a lot, too. Finally, Volvo quality has been dodgy of late. That lovely S40, unfortunately, is part of the problem here. I wonder if warranty costs are dragging down profits. These troubles are all pretty easy to address, and Volvo's near-future product plans may well take care of them. For now, though, it's easy to see why the company is in a minor slump.

Hah. Thanks for pointing out the half-baked, poorly researched analysis. The other thing that struck me is that he never even answers his own question. I'd be curious to see a detailed breakdown of what the components of Ford are really worth, vs. the company's actual market cap. That's an interesting way to see how much Ford's image problems reduce the perceived value of the company. Of course, you won't find that here. This is just shoddy journalism, pure and simple.