rkisler

If I were to guess, I would say the plant is gone for good. The last product (Town Car) is on the move to St. Thomas. This plant is quite a mess after having multiple vehicle programs implemented over the years. There are probably still 4 body shops within the plant -- although some of the equipment might have been removed (T'bird; LS; Continental; Town Car). Some of the lines criss cross each other. And the plant requires very high fixed costs to keep it running. I think it would be very difficult and to configure this plant in a manner that would enable it to be profitable.

I have a similar, but slightly different slant. It is true that Ford made an effort to rationalize (with a "z", right jpd80?) RWD car platforms. At that point, however, the D2 (DEW) was already cast in stone, and it was a robust but expensive luxury car program. There was never any consideration in the original development of the D2 program to deriving a lower-cost sedan or sport coupe. So, in the end, DEW didn't work for either FoA or Mustang. The early Mustang engineering and the Falcon/Territory were, however, in their early stages. The teams were tasked with finding a common solution to an affordable IRS. FoA engineers joined the Mustang team on site and worked their butts off (as did the Mustang team). In the end, despite VP level charter and review, they couldn't make it happen. The FoA engineers were extraordinarily disappointed as they still believed it could be done. So in the end, the Falcon ended up with a decent and cost-effective independent rear suspension and the Mustang (through Phil Martens management edict) ended up with something resembling a farmer's wagon. Usually I like to look forward to events that are controllable and not dwell on the past, but I think Ford missed two opportunities which could serve as a good lesson going forward: 1. Commonize the rear suspension. The suspensions could have been largely common between Mustang and Falcon, but of course the underbody and sheetmetal would have been unique. There still might be an opportunity to adapt Falcon IRS in Mustang. 2. FoA moves to 3.5L Duratec. FoA made a bid to be one of the suppliers of the corporate 3.5L. FoA in Geelong has casting capability, some experience with high pressure die casting, machining capability and lots of al-u-min-i-um. This would have finally replaced the workhorse I6. On paper this proposal didn't work on a standalone basis -- it had a very high investment, the increment wasn't as high as Ford US wanted in the gigantic US framework, and had it happened, there would have been exchange implications for those powertrains shipped to NA. But...had that change been made, FoA now would be redoing the Falcon front end utilizing mainstream corporate powertrains and a V package rather than the long and tall I6. This would have provided a better opportunity to tie the front ends together with the all V US market. I can imagine that the I6 is under pressure anyway. Engine plants don't generally run at 100k, and it must be looking very attractive for the Ford to send 3.5's from the US to Oz considering exchange rates. If these two actions had been taken, along with a bit of discipline, these platforms could have been pulled together front to rear within a couple of years. Now I don't see the alignment until 5 plus years -- or ever -- as there is no financial incentive to do so.

IMO, I don't see that facilitizing for a new RWD sedan in NA is a high priority for Ford at this time, regardless of what architecture you might choose. Ford has Panther retail, albiet not in the Ford showroom. Ford has FWD/AWD Taurus/Sable. So, what role exactly is a new RWD sedan supposed to take? How will the customer distinguish it from other vehicles in the showroom? How will the salespeople explain the product and distinguish it from the Taurus/Sable? Or do the proponents think that somehow magically if Ford dumps the D3 and goes to RWD, then that will make things "all better"? Of course, if it looks like the Interceptor, you might argue that it would sell itself. But how many can you expect to sell in a period of rising gas prices? You might find that what's in vogue today will look wasteful and foolish tomorrow. Here's the RWD platform situation (excluding Jag): Panther looks to be around for another 5 years or so (maybe longer?), but with minimal changes -- only enough to keep St. Thomas at one shift. Then maybe dead, but who knows. Mustang will be due for product changes, but I suspect these will be carried out on the existing platform, much as FoA carries out progressive changes on the Falcon (the Mustang has higher volumes than all of the Falcon derivatives combined). I don't see any compelling reason to spend a lot of money to flip the Mustang platform to anything else at this point. I do see a need to rekindle a previous engineering exploration with FoA on IRS, however. FoA is going through another metamorphisis with Falcon. Last time they redid the rear to add IRS and (thank goodness) added the Territory. This time around, they are concentrating on the front end (with all new exterior/interior of course). Given declining volumes, this might be the last hurrah for this platform...but FoA is very, very resourceful. Any production of a sedan in the US will be very investment intensive. I just don't see the planets aligning now. Maybe 5+ years from now, maybe not. Ford has to have as much higher priorities the development of more fuel efficient vehicles that will be appealing to customers and will help meet very likely CO2 (economy) mandates. There could be some limited opportunity to develop and federalize Falcon LHD for a niche vehicle. But, the size of the program and the potential slim margins due to exchange and shipping might leave very little investment dollars to change the product. Maybe you could combine the case for the LWB. You surely won't see the I6. So, back to my questions. How would this product distinguish itself in the showroom? How would the salespeople sell it? How much advertising would a limited volume program generate to promote awareness? What issues do a niche product cause with parts and service, and the extended parts pipeline from Australia? I think the prospects are iffy at best which is why Tom Gorman's comments are always optimistic in terms of FoA capability but also indicate there are no firm plans. By the way, I think Ford US should reconsider the "Panther only" policy in the Middle East to at least give FoA a shot at LHD long wheelbase.

I agree with the gist of your post. As I indicated in a previous post, platforms are not infinitley flexible, and the wider the net of derivatives, the more chance that compromise such as function and cost will be driven into the individual derivatives. But there are intelligent ways around some of the issues. Let me use the D2 (DEW) platform as an example. As originally engineered, the D2 was a luxury car platform capable of spawning LS and S-Type, a longer wheelbase Town Car replacement and potential XJ, and a Mark and Mark convertible. Unfortunately, before the program was completed, all of the steel derivatives except for the LS and S-type were cancelled, and engineering on those derivates was halted. But...the concept on the long wheelbase model was going to be accomplished with longer front rails and additional crash triggers, within the same architecture and with the ability to be produced easily within the same body shop. The Mustang was not planned to be a D2 derivative originally, but, if Ford had forced Mustang into the LS facility, there is a high probability that the commonality would have been much higher. A macpherson strut could have been substituted as a lower cost alternative to the LS's forged aluminum SLA --with common lower mounts and a modified shock tower. The key is to get the derivatives identified and defined early in the program, put them in a single facility if possible, and stick to the plan (not a Ford strong point). EUCD's in Genk is a good example.

Partially true.... From an engineering standpoint, there are more engineering hours expended in the front structure of a vehicle than the rest of the structure. The demands on the front end are crucial, from crash to engine and front suspension package. The mid secton of the vehicle is not so difficult. The rear is also relatively difficult with rear crash, suspension, and fuel tank. Engineering is a scarce resource, and sharing is even more critical now. Also, sharing engineering can reduce time and improve consistency (quality). But...it's not normally engineering that makes or breaks a program as the cost represents only about 20% of the total cost of the program. It's usually the new tooling to manufacture components and impacts on manufacturing that swing the balance. Considering stamping dies and body shops are very expensive, if you can manufacture the derivatives in a single plant, you can save a bundle. If manufacturing locations are separated, however, savings are much more illusory. Having a common front end design is a good thing if it provides commonality without affecting customer satisfaction. It will save engineering cost and time and allow engineers to work on other projects. But a common front end on, say, a Falcon and a US RWD product won't provide much savings on stamping dies or assembly. Due to the long distances, you likely won't find cross shipping of common stampings between NA and Broadmeadows. Of course, commonality on dense, high value components such as engines and transmissions can be beneficial as a better business case can be bult for shipping and the investment costs for the components are quite high.

Here's my take on investigation of a Lincoln "RDX": It looks to me like Mulaly wanted to find some project to test importation of FoE products to North America. And, based on his reputation, I bet he pushed hard. Some options: - This generation of Mondeo not a good idea -- little potential for incremental sales, and would substitue for cars already produced here; limited engine choices which would put the car at a competitive disadvantage in the US marketplace from a horsepower standpoint (no V6 and top horsepower is lower than today's Fusion which already lags competition). - S-Max might have been interesting as it represents an unique product in the Ford showroom, but revenues likely limited and demand for small minivans uncertain. - Lincoln small crossover also represents an unique product. Would offer a fun, more youthful entry in the Lincoln showroom. Would offer the best possible pricing for a NA brand to provide the best business case. Would require some modification to make it into a Lincoln -- trim, badging, materials, grille, etc. - but nothing structural. - Lincoln also could consider an "Acura TSX". The TSX is basically the European Accord and comes as a 205HP I4 only. I assume Ford has already investigated a Lincolnized Mondeo as a possible entry below MKZ. Since we haven't heard anything, we can probably assume this was also rejected. The fact that this business case apparently fell through does not surprise me. I also means that there is likely not any business case for any other direct import from Europe at this point.

In any platform investigation, of course you are going to try to preserve high value components like powertrains. But in relation to this topic, here are some platform concepts that won't work well: Combined unibody and BOF design -- there would be no relationship whatsoever between the unibody and BOF structure. A full unibody structure over a frame would weigh too much (eg Land Rover). Suspensions different. Not worth pursuing. Combined BOF truck and car design -- First, Ford does not need a new BOF car, so any effort in this direction would be wasted. Second, the mission for these two vehicles is so different, that there would not be any commonality whatsoever. The truck frame is more robust, rides higher, weighs more, etc. Pushing for commonality would compromise both products. I'm still of the opinion that a new RWD for NA should be low on the priority list. If it gets moved up on the priority list, Ford could investigate a number of potential permutations and combinations. Commonality amongst unibody Falcon, Mustang, and a new sedan in NA would be one example. These studies have been done many, many times in the past and they are probably continuing. I'm sure the implications are well known. Doing a "cut and paste" with other existing platforms (D3, D2c) would be another approach. But any approach is going to be expensive as there is no plant that is facilitized in NA, so we're easily talking in the $800 million to $1 billion range.

This information is correct, but... while it is true that Ford Motor (with Sumitomo's support) is in control of Mazda, Ford US can't simply tell Mazda what to do with the other 1/2 of AutoAlliance. For instance, Ford might have thought it best boot Mazda out of AAII, convert the whole plant to D2c derivatives, and have Mazda build a new plant in the US (perhaps closer to Hermosillo). But just because Ford US thought it was a good idea wouldn't make it happen. Mazda would push back hard if the plan weren't best for them. The Ford executives at Mazda walk a bit of a tightrope. Ultimately, they're going to have to come back home. But while they are in Hiroshima, they put on the Mazda baseball cap and, in general, support actions that will benefit Mazda AND Ford. This is probably best, as Ford mangagement can be a lot more scatterbrained than Mazda in most cases.

You like fingerprint recognition? So, you guys want to take off your gloves in Minnesota in the wintertime while juggling a grocery bag in one arm and a kid in the other so you can scrape snow off of the reader then instantly freeze your fingers onto the device only to be removed by a bucket of hot water?? Fingerprint recognition plus a whole lot of other concepts have been studied, including iris recognition, voice recogniton, ear recognition. They all have plusses and minuses. Weather, sunglasses, ambient noise for example As a system, passive entry probably works best, but that requires you to carry some sort of fob or credit card device. Some users of the keypad want to leave everything in the car.

Of course, most RWD will have better turning circles than FWD, but I was comparing a "normal" RWD with longitudinal engine to your proposal of moving the wheels forward of the engine (If I understood your comments correctly). In this case I stand by my comments that such a powertrain layout would have disadvantages. The 330 engine extends forward of the front wheel centerline and the shaft for the 330xi goes underneath the engine. This is typical practice. I can't think of any RWD car with reasonable production with the engine behind the front wheels -- with the exception of the RX8 which has an extremely compact powertrain (and no AWD). It's really not a major deal to put the AWD shaft under the engine if it's designed in from the get-go.

The LWB CV is made at St. Thomas on an off-line operation with limited volume. I'm not sure exactly how the Town Car is going to be moved from Wixom. The short and long wheelbase CV are not the same as the short and long wheelbase Town Car. I suppose they are going to put at least one longer wheelbase model on the main line?? If they are, my guess is around $100 million or maybe more just to move TC. No other flex with the present arrangement as best I know. But...at one point, St. Thomas made Escort EXP's (remember the frog headlights?) and Panthers in the same plant! So I guess anything is possible. I'm also not sure what the total utilization of OAC is and how exactly it's being facilitized. But this site has two assembly plants (Oakville and Ontario Truck) that are virtually next to each other with two separate paint shops. I would love to see a facility plan of the Edge/MKX and Flex to understand exactly what's going on. This plant also could provide an opportunity for further D3 derivatives.

In this case, you would be talking about a "front mid engine" layout. As far as I know, nobody is doing this with the exception of the Mazda RX8 which has an extremely compact powertrain. The problem with this is an extremely long wheelbase with increased turning circle, an extended hood line, and very long distance from the base of windshield to the front of the car. The shaft is not a big deal; BMW, Mercedes and others have done it. Parts are easily purchased.

1. Still not sure about rear but we don't have enough details -- but if you have a 4.6l up front (assuming it fits) might be an issue. 2. Engineering the AWD drivetrain in the front is not a large issue; others have done it and Ford can buy parts off the shelf. The 6-speed already has capability for integrated diff. Not sure about Explorer, but it has ground clearance so shaft isn't as much an issue. The key in RWD cars is to smoosh the car to the ground enough that you don't notice which models have AWD. I don't know if the data are accurate, but BMW's site shows the same overall height for the 328i and the 328xi. 3. If you're talking about STAP for any new car, then it's basically the same investment as an all new facility minus the building and paint facility. Big bucks. St. Thomas is not flexible at all -- it is configured to produce a whole bunch of Panthers in a single wheelbase and not much else. I simply don't see enough demand to justify a new plant for a NA RWD product. IMO the only chance for a new RWD product in NA is to buddy up with Mustang in AAI or maybe a D3 derived product in Chicago. Or, on a long shot, in a new facility with a unibody Explorer. I don't think there is enough critical mass for a stand-alone facility given the other products Ford already has in place. But who knows?

My comment addressed my assessment of the future of the Panther which I equated to the Kalamazoo Checker plant based on signals sent by Ford. So, you run the Panther as long as possible with minimal product changes. Then consider what you want to do with the cop business (around 50-60k annually). Alternatives might include a range from a new RWD entry to giving up on the business altogether. In the middle is the alternative you mention which is to try to pick up part of the business with the D3 and give up on the rather small interceptor business. Municipalities and states are all feeling the pinch of fuel prices, and this might turn out to be the best alternative in the end. I'm not sure of the financial condition of Panthers, but I bet the profits are a lot less than many on this board think. Running a plant on a single shift (St. Thomas) has a lot less potential for profits than 3 shifts (Hermosillo). Not to mention the investment it's going to take to move the Town Car to St. Thomas. Key to the profitibility is not the revenue/cost structure of the Panthers today, but the amount of investment required to keep the car legal and to fill one shift. Looks like Ford isn't willing to invest a lot beyond this, and I assume there is a good reason -- better investment opportunities elsewhere.

Great picture of the drivetrain.. For the front end, the first thing you would do to make a D3 RWD is to turn the engine 90 degrees. Then move the wheels forward to achieve better weight distribution (50/50 vs. 60/40) and appearance (less front overhang). This will tear up the front structure and rails. Of course, Ford could consider "off the shelf" suspensions to see if any worked. Maybe the rear could be saved. But it depends in part on engine selection. How much torque are you sending to the rear? Is the tunnel big enough to accomodate the required drive shaft? Can the rear suspension handle the torque? Although engineering is a scarce resource I think the major issue of a D3 RWD or any new RWD is the cost of the assembly facilities. Let's say you wanted a D3 RWD produced in Chicago. My understanding of Chicago is that it's a modular D3 plant There is very little excess floorspace for modificatations. It's being modified to go from 3 models to 4, but any new entry could be a big issue. Can the body shop handle what is essentially a new platform in the plant? Can the chassis shop handle the new suspensions? Can trim and final handle the complexity? How about the paint shop -- can it handle the color complexity? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I smell big dollar signs which would put a lot of pressure on the financial viability. Any new RWD for Ford NA would have to have AWD capability. A shaft takes off from an integral diff in the transmission and runs forward then goes left/right with one shaft going through the oil pan and across to the other side. Requires a lot of careful engineering to get the shaft/suspension correctly located. For example, when the shaft goes across, it has to go past the bearing, not the crank throw to minimize height issues. Still, Ford still has to answer the question "why?" With the emphasis on reduced CO2 emerging as THE key issue, is investing in a RWD product in NA a great opportunity or is it like investing in dot coms right before the bubble burst? IMHO I don't think it's a high priority.

I have some comments for Richard's question, but I first wanted to cover some basics on platforms with a few examples: What is a Platform? If you ask 10 automotive enginers, you are likely to get 10 answers depending on their frame of reference. One definition might be a basic front end and underbody structure that could be modified for length while still retaining the basic structure. Another might be a set of components (particularly suspension and powertrain) that could be applied to a variety of body structures. Another might be the ability to manufacture a variety of derivatives within a single body shop. Ford's definition is not solid, but lately the term "common technologies" has been used; the definition is a bit loose, you can read this as components, but also includes body structure, and can even include the used of scaled components that are similar in design but larger or smaller depending on application. No Platform or component set is Infinitely Flexible Platforms are flexible within a range, but the more the range is stretched, the more cost or performance compromises are driven into the derivatives. If you design a platform for luxury cars, you might find that you can't substitute enough lower-cost components to achieve an affordable entry (e.g., D2 and Mustang). When you stretch a platform, you might run into weight constraints that will overrun the suspension capability and will cause additional investment or substitution of expensive materials (D2 and Jag XJ). Conversely, shortening a platform might produce a big weight and cost penalty for the smaller vehicle. When you try to go from a car or minivan to a crossover or SUV, height and suspension travel become a big issues (Odyssey/Pilot). When you make a derivative wider, there is only limited ability to move the wheels outboard which can result in an awkward appearance with the wheels inboard of the sheetmetal. And on and on. In any situation, it's obviously best to have the plan for all the derivatives in place a the beginning of the program so all of the compromises can be worked out rather than patched together at the end. You can't believe everything you read When Ford developed the CDW (Mondeo/Contour/Mystique), it was in vogue to brag about how much was spent -- hence the $6 billion program which included powertrain. But Ford and other manufacturers soon realized that it was better to talk about how smart the company is in sharing components to get unique products, so now you will find statements on platform commonality that are suspect at best. Despite Ford's PR, the Edge/MKX is not a CD3 -- it was developed in conjunction with the Mazda MPV (Japan) and the CX-9 to share engineering and component costs. Ford Europe has done a good job of providing a wide range of core EUCD's that can be produced in a single plant (Mondeo/S-Max/Galaxie). Although Ford is calling the Volvo S80 a EUCD, I have serious doubts that you would find a lot of common components. I suspect it is really a P2 with EUCD components integrated on an opportunistic basis. In particular, I bet that the front structure is totally unique to handle the package and crash implications of the 60 degree V8. The application of a V6 for North America was one of the major causes of the split between EUCD and CD3; to the best of my knowledge, the Mondeo is capable of only sideways I engines. And I also would bet that the LR2 component sharing is not so high. However, the fact that these products are being devoped with a common design philosophy and parts sharing goals is great and provides the best opportunity for sharing. Economies of scale can be difficult to achieve If components are common on a single continent, cost savings through higher volume can be significant. The savings can also materialize if the components for a couple of vehicles are similar in design and come from the same supplier. This is another reason that FoE decided to use C1 as the basis for EUCD. When you cross oceans, however, savings are more difficult to achieve. Shipping subassemblies (such as rear suspensions) across the ocean is not economically attractive. Which means that your best bet to get cost savings is to have the supplier located in the country of assembly and preferably close to the assembly plant. Having three widely spaced manufacturing facilities for CD3, for instance, probably results in lost opportunies for cost reductions. Unfortunately, Australia is a very difficult case. Shipping components to and from Australia to NA is relatively expensive, and the volumes in Australia are not high enough to generate high efficiency in isolation. I'm not saying it's bad to have common components, but you can't just say "we'll pound 'em out by the millions and save billlions!!"; it's a lot tougher than that. ..............Now to the subject of RWD......... Does Ford need a new RWD platform in NA This is the first and probably most difficult question to answer. First, we can put Panther off to the side. Ford has apparently adopted a Kalamazoo strategy for Panther. Move St. Thomas down to one shift (120-140k annually), and only adopt those minimal changes that are required to keep the plant relatively full; get rid of the platform and perhaps the plant when critical mass is lost (2012??). Ford could consider a RWD sedan platform, but limited volumes likely would not justify development. IMO, there is room for a new platform only if Ford is planning a unibody SUV to replace Explorer. But...as I mentioned above, the component sharing between a car and a "real" SUV will be challenging. With Ford's limited financial resources and huge challenges on the horizon for fuel economy, there may not be any RWD program whatsoever, particularly considering that GM is apparently not going forward, and Chrysler's entries will be orphans. What Platforms would Ford consider? You can bet Ford has gone through every platform possibility in search of the answers. It might be that Ford has not finalized a plan yet. Panther. Rejected -- too old/large; BOF; not relavent to most younger buyers Falcon. There is some very limited capacity to ship a RWD sedan from Broadmeadows -- maybe 30-40k. Would require investment for LHD. But Falcon size is not so different from Taurus, so why? Some postings are bemoaning the cancellation of the Fairlane. But, as JPD80 points out, the Fairlane was developed in a very inexpensive fashion. I think I am correct in stating that the longer wheelbase version keeps common rear doors with the wheelbase coming in back of the doors. This makes rear seat access somewhat difficult as the door opening is well ahead of the seat back and there is a large side cushion. Certainly not so good for pushing perps in the back seat if you're thinking of using it for a cop car. If Falcon were considered for NA assembly, it would require investment basically equivalent to an all new platform as no manufacturing site is presently producing this product here. Economies of scale from components from Australia or cross shipping from the US back to Australia are likely to be minimal. As I see it, if the investment is essentially the same as a new platform, would you want to replicate the Falcon in the US? I would say no. D3. D3 stared life as the Volvo P2 (S80), although you won't find many common parts. What you will find is a very robust and safe body structure. The platform is FWD/AWD. I guarantee you that converting from FWD to RWD requires a major tearup. When the dust settles, you would have to count the parts to see if the savings were worth the effort. I am assuming that any RWD would have a longitudinal engine layout. The front structure would have to be totally unique for engine package and crash; the wheels would move forward; the suspension and suspension mounting points likely would be unique; the cowl structure would be unique for engine package. The front and rear underbody likely would be unique for bigger tunnel. If you're lucky, you might be able to preserve a bit of the rear underbody and maybe the rear suspension, but even that is suspect. Creating a RWD from D3 and preserving any commonality will be very difficult. And the ability to manufacture the resulting product in an existing plant (say Chicago) also will not be trivial, but maybe not impossible. D2c. Mustang could be stretched into a sedan; studies were done some time ago. But it needs a completely new rear underbody and IRS suspension. Not capable of being a luxury entry without a lot of work. The platform is aging; plant investment would be high unless Mazda were to build another plant in NA and vacate their half of AAI. As I mentioned, I suspect that Ford has examined all these possibilities along with a bunch of "cut and paste platform" possibilities we haven't even thought of. But the key questions to be asked are "does Ford need a new RWD platform in NA" and, if so, "what products are going to be derived from the platform".

You are right, Hermosillo was vastly underutilized before CD3; I think annual volumes might have been running around 120k, with plant capacity at probably somewhat over 200k. When Ford was producing first Escort then Focus in both Wayne and Hermosillo, if the volumes were running below capacity the bad news "flex" often would get shoved down to Hermosillo to lessen UAW issues. You should always take announced investment figures with a dose of skepticism. If a company is announcing investment to Wall Street, then the number will be lower and exclude some items to say "see how smart we are". On the other hand, if the announcement is geared toward local politicians and citizens (from whom you might have received incentives), the number will be pumped as high as possible. In the case of Hermosillo, it could be that Ford gave the total investment for the CD3 program and the supplier park and it was reported as being all Hermosillo (I saw one article that mentioned $1.2 billion for Ford and $400 million by suppliers). I really don't think the footprint was significantly expanded. As you point out, however, the expanded supplier park might have taken some component assembly outside of the plant which would have freed up some floorspace. At any rate, Hermosillo now has a 3-crew operation with 305k total capacity, so the issue of how they got there is behind us. And I would doubt this capacity could be pushed much higher with the present facilities (probably would require another body shop, and paint expansion which would be expensive).

No big disagreement; I hope continued product improvements, long-term durability, and reputation will incease demand enough to result in a capacity expansion. But first I would rather see Hermosillo literally bursting at the seams and making a lot of money. I think it's going to be some time before there are 50k people lined up to buy a CD3 that can't get one. And if they can't, probably 50% of them would find another car or crossover in the Ford/LM showroom. I think it's going to take more like 100k of capacity shortfall to initiate a capacity expansion. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the CD3s platform in Oakville bears very little relationship to CD3, and the sedans could not easily flex into this plant. Nor into Chicago. The only other plant producing CD3's in NA is AAI and there is no room there unless Mustang were to go elsewhere. One serious issue with CD3 plants is the integrated sheetmetal stamping within the plant Although this makes for a very efficient plant operation (versus shipping stampings from a central stamping plant), it is not designed or capacitized to ship sheetmetal stampings outside the plant. Which means another set of stamping dies located elsewhere which is another added expensive.

Pioneer, I think there is still some room in Hermosillo. Looking at the sales figues on BON, it looks like last year's sales of the triplets was about 210k in the US. Add 10% for Canada, and maybe 5-10k for Mexico/SA, puts the total volume at around 240-250k. Volume in 2007 could be higher. There is a full year of AWD availability, and a full year of MKZ. More importantly, Taurus won't be in the showroom to compete. In 2008, hybrids will be available, but the volume might be fading somewhat due to product aging. So it looks like volume might be pretty well matched to a single plant 3-crew operation for now. It would take a significant event or events (such as develpment of derivative body styles) to make expansion into another assembly plant worthwhile. Even if Ford were to install a power improved 3L or a 3.5L, or "make the product competitive" I don't think the volume bump would be all that high. Probably more important to this segment is filling in the red reliability circles in CR's annual auto edition. Consistent reliability will build the brand and will help keep residuals high to keep lease rates low. There is no other plant in North America other than Mazda/Ford AAI plant that is facilitized for CD3 production and that plant seems pretty full with 626/Mustang. (CD3s in Oakville (Edge/MKX) is not really related to CD3). Putting CD3 in any other plant would carry a high investment price tag which wouldn't be justified at this point.

And standard vinyl seats.

The six door concept was considered for the Excursion but never implemented. These days, you patent first and ask questions later. That prevents the follow on users from stealing your idea and patenting it as their own. Ford has been the recipient of this kind of action in the past and has hopefully learned lessons the hard way.

I assume you are aware that all of the components you mention you had troubles with on your Villager were, in fact, Nissan components?

Yes this would be a possibility. AAI is owned 50/50 between Ford/Mazda, so any agreement has to be negotiated and agreed between the parties. Personally, I like this scenario better: Mazda builds a new plant in Texas. Plant is non-union; UAW remains in Flat Rock. Suppliers for CD3 move to Texas and Mexico to jointly supply Mazda Texas plant and Hermosillo to get much more efficient economies of scale than the split sourcing the platform now has. Mazda can move Mazda3 production to US since it is severely constrained at Ujina. AAI and UAW workforce taken over by Ford for RWD derivatives. This is one of the few chances that Ford has to shed the UAW in any US plant; I think they should take it.

If only the MKR is built, it has to be be built at AAI to be affordable from an investment standpoint. But, as you mention, fitting it in might be problematic or impossible. If Ford were to facilitize another plant for unibody RWD products (regardless of platform), or Mazda were to fly south, then it's another story, but the investment cost will skyrocket, and developing critical mass for this scenario is iffy at best at this point, even with an Interceptor type vehicle in the mix. I'm not willing to bet a kidney, but maybe a little toe? Any D2c Cougar would require all new sheetmetal and interior compared with Mustang rather than the lightly differentiated Fusion/Milan situation. This would generate a very high investment and combined with Mustang level pricing and relatively low volumes, would be very difficult to justify from a financial viewpoint. The only way it might work would be if a Cougar were required to fill in excess Mustang capacity and even then it would be a stretch. I agree with pcsario that a Fusion/Milan coupe would be a better, more practical solution.

I don't think so, jpd80, as Group VP Richard Parry-Jones had the global PD title previously (he's now shown as only Chief Technical Officer, and the Global PD title has been removed since Derrik now has it). And of course, there is a lot more to vehicle programs than PD; in particular, manufacturing (which Derrik doesn't control) is the largest piece of the spending. I think it's more about Mulally having the tools he thinks are necessary to run the company in an organized fashion. This way, he has the money in his pocket and can negotiate and settle disputes between his direct reports, then pull the money out his pocket and move on. It's also a signal from the Ford family that this is one outside business person that they have faith in and are willing to give him more control over the purse strings. They're showing him more encouragement than previous outside guys including Iacocca, Peterson, Nassar. For better or worse, Ford's fate seems to be in Mulally's hands. What a challenge!!! So far I am encouraged.