rkisler

My memory is fading, but I think the key auto ports are Long Beach, Galveston, Jacksonville, and Newark. Logistics from Hermosillo are tough. When the CT18 program and Hermosillo were first established, Mazda/Ford and local governments established port facilities that would allow shipment of containers directly from Hiroshima to Guaymas, a port around 80 miles from Hermosillo. Now parts and completed vehicles go up and down by rail. Even if Guyamas were able to handle ro-ro's (I'm not sure it can), that means a long journey through the Panama Canal. But to send empty ships to Guaymas, where would they be coming from? This is way out of the normal shipping pattern, so I just don't see it. BTW, once you have a vehicle on a ship, the incremental cost of additonal mileage is actually relatively inexpensive. (For instance, I seem to remember that the additonal freight from Jacksonville to Newark was around $15.) Probably the only alternative that would work from Hermosillo would be to ship by rail to Galveston, TX. Certainly not impossible. Logistics of shippng Mondeo or other CD4 derivatives from the Heartland to Europe also aren't easy. You have to get to an ocean port; access to Great Lakes shipping doesn't do any good. These ships are narrow, are set up for bulk delivery, and aren't set up for the ocean. So you have to ship by rail likely to Newark. One advantage is that you might be able to get a decent ocean feight rate based on filling otherwise empty ships going back to Europe. I can absolutely guarantee you that this situation is so stressful that Ford has all of the alternatives on the table, including Mondeo from either Hermosillo or Flat Rock, and CD4 crossover/van derivatives from OAP. We just dont' know at this point which alternatives Ford has crossed off the list.

I could be wrong, but this just doesnt' sound like something Mullaly would want to do. When he took over, he requrested (and got) full access to Bill Ford and the Ford family. And he also got a commitment from Bill to let him run the show. I think he realizes it's important to have a "buck stops here" leader, and I think he would view a role like this as unnecessary fiddling and a distraction. Mullaly really cares about Ford and its successful future which is his legacy. I just can't see it. However, in typical generous corporate payouts to high level employees, I'm sure he will get very lucrative "consulting " contracts after he leaves (helps to keep food on the table).

You can't really think of Wayne Assembly as an assembly plant at this point. Ford took two plants and combined into one. So, as ausrutherford mentions, the flow now goes from the body shop on the south side of the tracks directly to paint/trim/final in what used to be MTP. So the old plant is cut out of the flow. To do anything with this building would require a major renovation, and I'm not so sure how well it would work out due to space limitations. Having the stamping plant across the tracks is bad enough, but I'm not sure if there is enough room for additional capacity to support another final line.

I don't have the numbers, but Hermosillo is operating on 3-crew, so they are full up as best I know. The addition of Flat Rock shows Ford is begin bullish enough on Fusion to try to take more share in the family car segment, and they probably see the segment growing also. Particularly as the fuel economy is rising so fast to levels beyond where c-cars were only a couple of years ago. Ford spending of $550 million in Flat Rock is not trivial. The body shop and paint shop are expensive. The flexible body shop will give Ford the flex opportunity for future CD4 models. For instance....if Ford decides to keep the Taurus, and converts it to CD4, there is a good chance it could be flexed into Flat Rock. What is not so likely in Flat Rock are CUV's (i.e., Edge), unless they have made further changes to the paint plant including e-coat dip tanks that could take the height. We don't have enough specifics at this point, so that will provide lots and lots of really great fodder for BON posters!

I don't know if Mazda has enough money right now to open a new U.S. plant -- as you mention it's not quick, easy, or cheap. And they might not have the volume to justify it. I don't believe they would want any abandoned plant. But there is something else they wouldn't want. 1. The Flat Rock plant was originally the site of a new and ill-fated Ford casting plant that was built in the late 1970's to support V8's blocks right before the second oil crisis. I can't remember if the plant ever came on line, but it was mothballed almost immediately. A huge financial disaster. 2. When Mazda was looking for a U.S. plant, Ford said "I've got a deal for you.", and offered the site as an auto assembly plant. Solved a lot of problems for Ford, and gave Mazda a good deal. Mazda didn't really want the plant; wanted a greenfield; Ford did a lot of arm twisting with Mazda and especially Sumitomo. Also at the time, Ford had plans to close Dearborn Assembly, and the Mustang was going to be Mazda based and built in Flat Rock. Does anyone here remember the photograph of the Mustang nomenclature impressed on a fascia of a prototype car that became the Probe? Remember the outcry that saved the Mustang? 3. So along with the plant came the UAW. Not just the UAW, but one of the most strident locals -- local 600. 4. AAI quality has never been stellar. I'm not blaming just the workers; it's a combination of factors including, perhaps, split ownership. If Mazda were to build a new plant, they would definitely want to be in a right-to-work state and shed the union. That means down south (or now Indiana), and in a place where they can get the huge incentives that are being offered (ummm in the states with politicians that say they reject government meddling in business).

The ownership is a bit strange, but perhaps it's just timing. The AAI contract between Ford and Mazda has ownership puts and calls that can be initiated by either party. They aren't automatic, but if either parts initiates, then that signals intent and triggers negotiation. AAI is a separate venture from the car programs that went into the plant. The plant was always under capacity, so the profits for the plant were always under water. With Fusion and a new Mustang coming, the plant has a chance of running at decent capacity utilization. The plant is now on one shift; the added employees primarily are to add back a second shift.

I agree. And that's regardless of manufacturer. Nice to see you posting.

Thanks. I saw that blog, but hadn't read it yet, since the body had little to do with the title. Just another CR rant.

This Inside Line article would have you believe that CR is slamming Ford, but the only blog I can find is titled "Vehicle technology can help save lives if drivers know how to use it" dated August 29th (Wed). It does not mention Ford at all, but does say: "Even if these technologies are in every vehicle in the future, the question is will they be used and will they be effective. Initial studies have found some of these technologies help, while others do not and drivers may not be using them to their full benefit." I can find no reference to this quote which according to Inside Line is contained in the CR's blogs (but I'm still looking). Perhaps CR included it in a previous review? Dunno.: "Consumer Reports also said that Ford did not address "whether more consumers are demanding back-up cameras and aids because visibility is getting so much worse in many cars."" I'm looking in the public area because I refuse to give CR any of my money for a subscription, but if any of you do have an on-line account, see if you can find the original source.

Sorry, but I'm talking about the SHO which was the highest price Taurus and had a very, very low take rate. I'm talking about main-stream, large, powerful V6's which represent around a 30% mix in mainstream family sedans.

I don't have any access to market research these days, but if you played a game "what's the first thing that comes into your mind" and asked C/D buyers to describe "V6" and "I4 Turbo", I personally think you might get something like the following: V6: Smooth; powerful; reliable Turbo I4: High technology; powerful; peaky; high rpm's; reliability issues This is all BS conjecture on my part, but I do think the positives for V6 would be higher than the positives for turbo I4 (I'm not talking what actually is, but perception). It's just riskier to go with something new at this point, cause you've got a lot of 'splaining to do. Which is why I think the conservative Japanese have stayed with their tried and true story.

I recognize that there were V6's in C/D cars (including Contour), but what I'm talking about were large, high horsepower V6's installed in affordable mainstream family C/D family cars. The first to to break that barrier was the Nissan Altima in 2002 with a 3.5l putting out around 250 hp, and that installation caused a lot of panic -- certainly at Honda and most certainly at Ford while the Fusion was in pre-program. These top end powertrains, combined with excellent 4 cylinder engines, had something to do with the Japanese pulling away with the segment, so it might be hard for them to give them up. At any rate, the point I was trying to make is that in the largest car segment in the U.S., the Japanese are sticking with larger displacement normally aspirated engines (but adding DI in some cases) including large V6's while Ford, GM, and Hyundai are going to GDTI. Since Honda's engines have just been updated, and they have a new CVT transmission, this is not a short-term affair. It will be interesting to watch. Will the "traditional" l4 and large V6 give them an advantage, since it might take a while for the public to become adapted to GTDI? Or will they be seen as out-of-step? I do applaud Ford for the gutsy call on Fusion's EcoBoost lineup; inside Ford, even mentioning an all I4 lineup on Fusion as a possibility a few years ago would have gotten one's head chopped off.

What I find most interesting is the various strategies in the huge C/D segment. The Japanese started the horsepower wars in C/D, first with Nissan installing a V6 with (IIRC) around 210 hp. That action caused Honda to take an uncharacteristic step for a Japanese company; they tore up the front structure of the Accord so they could jam in a V6 in response, and that action was taken outside the normal cycle. Every manufacturer responded with even higher horsepower V6's in what was a utilitarian, but rather sleepy segment. Now fast forward. Ford, GM, and Huyndai are generally going for GTDI 4 cylinders with traditional automatic transmissions, and that includes the higher performance models. The Japanese, however, are staying with improved larger displacement normally aspirated engines -- both I4's and V6's -- but are trending to CVT's. The latest move is Honda's improved I4 and V6 for the Accord matched with a new CVT. The powertrains are pulling some pretty good numbers; Nissan is showing 27/38 for the 2.5l Altima. For comparison, the Fusion 1.6l Ecoboost is projected to come in at 26/37. Real world fuel economy/driveability are TBD at this point. I do know that I have been in the back seat of my brother's Nissan Maxima, and I could hardly hear myself think with an incredibly awful low-frequency variable drone. I think the CVT is trying to search for a ratio that might be good for fuel economy, but is way too long-legged for NVH. We'll see what happens when these cars hit the road, but they almost have to be using the CVT's wide ratios to get those kind of fuel numbers.

Thanks a lot for posting this. Sent me to Wiki to learn more; never knew about this DC4 variant (with other miscellaneous parts mixed in). Well, in spite of the noise, Wiki says you were flying 35 mph faster! But supercharging meant straight through exhaust hence the "pleasant exhaust note."

You're right. Realistically, Ford is committed to Oakville. There is nowhere else to build the next-gen Edge. If Ford were going to change sourcing, those actions would have already begun. I don't think there is room anywhere else, and Ford isn't exactly ready for a new greenfield plant.

You always have to be careful with what is said and not said with the Japanese. This announcement might mean something, or it could have been just to save face; we need to have much more info or some sort of progress report (which I haven't seen but maybe missed?). I can tell you that the initial conversations with Toyota on hybrids turned sour very quickly because Toyota was extraordinarily arrogant, essentially saying "you won't be able to do this by yourself." So Ford said "F U" (very politely of course), walked away from the table, and did it themselves. These are two huge companies. Ford needs to improve fuel economy on pickups (as do the other manufacturers), but Ford doesn't necessarily want to give Toyota any competitive advantage in this critical segment. Trying to find a solution where both parties have "gives and gets" that balance is very, very difficult. I'm just spouting off without facts. I just set a low probability on a positive outcome.

This is a BMW platform that was in the final stages of development when Ford bought LR from BMW. Remember originally they used a BMW V8 which was replaced as quickly as possible to the AJ due to cost. This platform is a "belt and suspenders" with both BOF and unibody elements; very tough but heavy. The architecture of the platform is very unique; there is a real command driving feeling where you feel like you are sitting on top of the vehicle rather than in it. Just take a look at the greenhouse, beltline, and steering wheel relationship. The unique architecture also makes it very tough to do a derivative that looks different. Ford did investigate this platform for use in Explorer, but it didn't go anywhere. Cost was an issue (this was before D3 Explorer was in the works); LR was completely open to the study, not resistant. Ford also had another more serious study of an all-aluminum CUV for Lincoln and LR which also died for a number of reasons (most unfortunately; on paper it was wonderful). Of course there is no question the Explorer borrowed design elements from LR, but since LR was out of the picture, I guess they didn't have to worry about any brand protection at that point.

It seems that way, but it's somewhat hard to tell. GM didn't really get the engine they wanted for the Volt as they were belly up during the later stages of development and had to grab an off-the-shelf engine from Austria. Volt's present operation on gas is certainly no where near equivalent Toyota or Ford efforts, but having a couple of sumo wrestlers on board all the time (i.e. otherwise known as batteries), doesn't help. It really depends on useage. mogur wanted an EV and evidently had a useage pattern where it works. Others probably purchase a Volt with useage that allows them to virtually never operate on gas, so the performance on gas is somewhat irrelevant. Others might have longer drives where a hybrid might be best, or maybe mixed low speed driving where, with care, one can operate primarily on electric with a PHEV like a C-Max Energi. Different strokes.......

Well of course, some manufacturers (notably Peugeot) are using or intend to use a "through the road" hybrid setup where the FWD powertrain stays as is, and a motor/generator unit is placed in the rear with powertrain calibration handling the tough job of sorting out what goes on when. The key advatages are cost and package and the flexibility to utilize existing platforms and powertrains (including potentially diesels). But, I'm not sure we have enough data to see how these will compare to full hybrids from Toyota and Ford. Borg Warner also seems to be going for the "through the road" market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxzSbTHbK8c

Thanks Edstock. I have a friend working for this small company in Ann Arbor on propane fuel cells, initially for the military: http://www.ultra-ami.com/

I agree the assumption is rediculous, and I'm really disappointed to see that the Federal Government (Secretary Chu and the California members in Congress) seem to be bending the research back toward hydrogen where previously funding was slashed. Of course the overwhelming majority of hydrogen gas presently and likely the medium term future comes from...........................wait for it............................natural gas. This steam reformation process has CO2 as a by product. The amount of hydrogen generated totally cleanly by, say, using solar to generate electricity and then using electrolosis to split water is miniscule and not likely to get larger in the near future, particularly with low prices for natural gas. That won't stop CARB from legislating zero emissions vehicles as they have repeatedly said they don't care how much it costs the automakers to comply. These requirements are once again totally stupid in terms of numbers of units required. The requirements likely will way outpace natural demand which will put large financial pressures on those required to comply initially (Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) and the other manufacturers (like BMW, Mercedes, Audi, VW, Kia, Hyundai) who were all given a break because they are "small manufacturers" based on their California sales and couldn't possibly be expected to tow the line like the "large" manufacturers.

There are some manufacturers looking at turbo diesel hybrids in Europe, but they are a very tough sell. Both the diesel and a typical full hybrid both have a very nice feature -- lots of torque at low speeds which makes driveability great. But when you put a turbodiesel with a hybrid, you are putting strength against strength. The present Atkins cycle engine matches weakness on acceleration matched with electric motor assist with economy at higher speeds when the motors kick off, so the Atkins cycle ICE and electric traction motor complement each other nicely. In addition, a diesel would be adding a slew of additonal cost for aftertreatment (as in $1,000-$2,000).. I do wonder, however, if there is any situation where a small displacement EcoBoost would work? Or maybe if you really wanted to push for hybrid economy with gasoline, it might be more likely to have a small supercharged Miller cycle? Fuel cells are an entirely different proposition. Of course, you don't need an ICE with a fuel cell vehicle -- the fuel cell stack produces electricity which powers the car. The main problem with fuel cell vehicles is cost and package of both the fuel cell stack and tank. There are a lot of very expensive materials in the catalyst in the stack (platinum for instance), and you have to use compressed hydrogen which is not readily available except for certain areas in California (hydrogen can only be turned into a liquid at very low temperatures not practical for autos). These cars will be coming on the market in the next few years, but expect price near to $100,000. Ford has done a ton of research and has a connection with Ballard in Canada, but appears to be showing no interest. Looking ahead, CARB believes that hydrogen fuel cells will overtake batteries and represent the majority of electric vehicles sold (in other words, they don't ever see battery technology improving to a point where range extends radically, and charging times reduce substantially). Of course, CARB could give a crap about cost to the manufacturer, particularly if it's a U.S. company, but they are willing to continue to give European manufacturers a sweetheart deal on delaying compliance with zero emission vehicles.

When I first joined Ford, they were just shutting down the turbine lab at a time when a lot of people were thinking they would be very useful -- perhaps particularly on trucks. Even though technology has marched on and we now have some cheaper materials to build from, turbines have pros and cons. A pro is that they are relatively compact. The cons are that they are not very fuel efficient, and they spew NOX out in copious quantities. Which means exhaust aftertreatment would be very expensive. So personally, I don't turbines happening.

Deleted

Yikes. Did you forget to take your meds? I was a member of Ford management for over 30 years before I retired. I certainly was not always happy with the UAW, nor am I now, but every employee in the U.S. has the right to be represented by a union, regardless of what some right wing nut cases want to believe. The UAW did not cause the hail storm. They -- like every other worker in the U.S. -- have the capability to build quality products, and there is no reason to believe they are not performing well in Louisville. I seriously doubt that a hail-damaged vehicle actually was shipped for retail sale as I have mentioned in my previous posts. As I mentioned, I will be leasing a hail-damaged (but repaired) Escape as a company retiree on the lease car program; I'll tell everyone what it's like when it arrives. If you actually saw a hail-damaged vehicle, all you had to do was to point out the damage to the dealer; as far as I know, all retail orders that were placed that were hail-damaged were rebuilt. Please save your "hopes and prayers" for something more important than ridding Ford of the UAW.