rkisler

There have been a couple of articles that have tried to categorize BEV's between "compliance" and "real"; these categories really hold the implicit message of "good" and "bad" because these prissy reviewers are really trying to judge how "serious" manufacturers are with electric cars. You have to understand where these comments are coming from. Mainly, EV fans (well, some are fanatics) are frustrated because they believe BEV's should already be here except they were blocked by mean corporations. So when Nissan rides in on a white horse, they are overjoyed, and still mad at those other companies. (Because, as we all know, GM was responsible for taking electric street cars down in LA, and they crushed EV1's, so we'll never forgive them for that. And Ford crushed those really great electric Rangers.) You don't have any idea what Ford's intentions are on volume for the Focus BEV (most are now referring to it as FFE) because Ford has not announced any specific volume projections. Mullaly has said he would be happy with 5,000 for 2012 which makes some sense as the dealer rollout has just begun. Here are some facts. Ford will have dealers nationwide in the U.S. by the end of the year. These dealers have to have trained techs, repair tools, and salespeople along with charging stations. From a production standpoint in the plant, there really isn't any issue on capacity except to the extent Ford wishes to mix other products. The integration of the C-Max Hybrid and C-Max Energi PHEV might disrupt things a bit as I'm reasonably sure the same manufacturing equipment will be used to install the upper battery. But that should be only a hiccup. So I looked to the supply base to try to get an answer. Magna just opened a new plant in Grand Blanc, MI to supply motors, controllers, and inverters solely to the FFE. The motor volume on one shift is 10k upa. Ideally, you want a plant to run on two shifts, but in this case one is OK to start. You don't put in 10k capacity on a single shift if the company you're supplying only wants 1-2,000 upa. So I put Ford's FFE volumes at 10-20k upa planned. And that puts it above the line for a "real" entry in all of the articles I've read despite the reviewers negative predispositions. Of course actual sales versus planned capacity can be two different things. I don't expect huge volumes for BEV's in the near future, but I'm hoping some of these snooty reviewers have egg on their face with the FFE. And there is absolutely no way in hell that Nissan will gear up for their stated maximum Leaf capacity of 150,000 upa in the U.S. from the get-go unless they want to eat bucketsfull of fixed costs. Another thing to consider. Ford has now integrated the FFE into MAP and will soon integrate HEV and PHEV. The intent is that each car coming down line can be built with a different degree of electrification and it's no more difficult than a powertrain option. Nissan is doing the same thing in Japan, and will mix other products with the Leaf in Tennessee. Both companies did this by holding key dimensions for suspension and engine mounting. Nissan chose to develop a new body and a battery pack that work well together to create a spacious interior, but they used carryover Versa suspension. Ford stayed with the Focus body shell with a slightly modified floorpan for battery mounting and coolant/electrical pass through, but this causes the second battery to be mounted up top which takes up substantial volume behind the rear seat. BEV's are not static. If the volumes grow, Ford can develop a new body with better battery package, run it through the already-existing flexible body shop at MAP, and take it down the line.

Take a look at this FoA EcoBoost ad. http://www.autoblog....ouse/#continued Might give you guys a better perspective on jpd80??

One of the other tidbits in this article was that the Cuatitlan plant (Fiesta) is capable of building c- and c/d class vehicles. There's flexiblity, and then there's flexibility. The key is in the body shop as that is the highest investment area, and that's where it appears Ford has finally committed the resources to drive flexibility. It requires an initial investment, but then so many downstream decisions are so much more logical as you can make changes in product without tearing up the plant, and without a lot of downtime When I was working at Ford, these kind of flexibility investment decisions were always axed right at program approval to "make the numbers." I can't say exactly how Ford is analyzing programs today, but it appears to me that the old method of dinging the first program in with the investment is no longer the modus operandi. It looks like the first consideration is long-term flexibility which is set aside as a given. That's a huge improvement over the pre-Mullaly method of analysis. Another thing that struck me in the article was that the 6-speed auto and the new power split hybrid box are both being assembled on the same line at Van Dyke. Wow. These are completely different configurations with internal motor generators on the hybrid box. Would love to see it.

Here's a list of Ford facilities worldwide, but it only includes plants, not offices including R&D. And employment isn't totaled anywhere. http://media.ford.com/plants.cfm

I don't have all your answers, but a few comments, and I'll be looking further: 1. Ford employs 75,000 direct employees in North America. This would include salaried and hourly and of course would include Canada, U.S., and Mexico. I don't have any further split right now. 2. I agree that the transplants do a much, much better job of bragging of how much employment they have in the U.S.. They also do a much, much better job of, errr, how do I say it...ensuring that their local content is as high as possible (there are a lot of ways to game the system). And they do a much better job of monitoring the U.S.& Canadian content report the government publishes. I think that some of the Ford numbers are downright not accurate, but it doesn't seem anyone at Ford is working to get them right. 3. When you see development costs of a new product, you always have to be careful because it depends on the story the manufacturer is trying to tell. If they are trying to sell a tax abatement, they will, let's say, allocate more of the costs to the plant in the state where they are bidding to get the abatement. Development costs include the whole ball of wax -- engineering (including prototypes), assembly plant building or rearrangements, vehicle tooling (like stamping dies), and assembly tooling. The spending on a new product program can vary widely. For instance, if a new program comes along with a plant tearup (like, say, Focus in a former SUV plant), then the product will carry a large investment. If the new product is going into a modern, flexible plant then the bill will be a lot less. You will certainly find some programs over a billion dollars, and you will find some under. You can occasionally get snippets, particularly in plant investment, but the actual spending on new programs is proprietary and not reported. It's also difficult as much of the spending is shared across borders. 4. John McElory who reports on "Autoline Detroit" cmade a pithy statement that I think says a lot. It went something like "If you want to know where a car is really being developed, you have to look where the crash tests take place." No transplant has a crash facility in the U.S. that I know of. But...the transplants have made a lot of progress and have grown their U.S. based R&D efforts. They did this at a very good time (for them) as they were able to get very qualified U.S. auto engineers as they were jumping ship from the U.S. manufacturers. A couple of the R&D facilities are close by where I live (Toyota and Hyundai/Kia). Toyota, in particular, has grown rapidly and is now capable of pretty much fully engineering a vehicle here (but on an existing platform). In fact the Chief Program Engineer for the Venza was a U.S. guy based in the U.S. That doesn't mean that all of their work doesn't get "double checked" at the mother ship in Japan. No complaints on Toyota or H/K; they are good local citizens and give a lot back to the community. But make no mistake, the R&D resources of U.S. automakers like Ford and GM absolutely dwarf the resources of any of the transplants. 5. Ford's U.S R&D facilities are located primarily in Michigan. Some in California (design).

I agree with your coments. I'm a Ford retiree and after doing a short analysis, I already have a number in mind that they would have to beat for me to even be intrerested. That's before understanding what the tax implications would be; once I have that sorted out, I can run it through my forward year cash flow model but I think I probably already know the answer even before getting the numbers. There is a risk, of course, in staying with the Ford pension. Ford has to stay in business, although the pension would be partially backed up by PBGC (providing that PBGC itself wouldn't go belly up and not have any funding available). Nevertheless, I agree with your argument. Ford has some pretty smart people investing the pension $; for that chunk of what I receive every year, I would just as soon have them do the investing and I can concentrate on my pre-tax and post-tax investments. If Ford is able to reduce costs through this program then that means it's a bad deal, on average, for those accepting it. There is one case where I can think this might be a good deal. If you retired early and had always dreamed of getting into business and were willing use this payment for capital ilo borrowing the money, then maybe.

The fact that the Ford side was able to go from FWD Mazda-designed product (Probe), to CDW (Cougar), and then to a RWD D2c (Mustang) without a huge disruption is pretty amazing. But the basic structure of the plant (in terms of the shared and separate bits) remained the same even when Mustang was installed after taking Cougar production down. IIRC, there might have been some adjustments in terms of inside or outside build of certain components (like instrument panel and tire mounting), but this kind of stuff is always going on. ausrutherford says plant will be down 6 months. If so, this sounds pretty major, so they must be doing something to ensure the plant can run more evenly even if begin jerked around by Mustang volumes. And I'm also not so sure how the assembly tooling that is there now on the Mazda side is consistent with Ford's latest philosophy (the body shop in particular). Nor am I sure which products will be loaded into the plant. Just Fusion, or are there other derivatives or potential derivatives that could be flexed in?? Dunno.

The issue with AAI is that there are two body shops, one paint shop, two chassis lines with one trim and final (IIRC -- as I've said before, my memory is dimming, dimming, dimming....) So you can do some side-to-side volume mix adjustments, but it's not completely flexible. For instance, unless Ford makes major changes, you couldn't run the Fusion body shop at a high enough rate to fill the plant with no Mustang volume. I don't know exactly what the flexiblily is now or what Ford is planning in terms of renovations when Mazda moves out. With the shared ownership of the plant previously, volume and mix was always a headache because it involved often times protracted product and business negotations with Mazda to change overall capacity (i.e., number of shifts) and mix. Now Ford will own the whole plant which should make that part of the process a lot easier. AAI has been nothing but trouble for Ford for many years from a profitability standpoint (I'm talking the plant, not the products), partially due to unstable volumes. Hopefully this latest plan will finally be able to get the plant running ultimately at two shifts with more stable volume. Of course three crew would be better, but I'm not holding my breath.

It will be a lump sum option on the GRP only and only for salaried employees. Any other supplemental benefits you might receive on a monthly basis are not covered. You should wait until you receive a package in the mail (as a retiree, I know when any envelope arrives with a Ford logo, it's probably not good news, but it will probably start with the line "we've improved your benefits."). As the time approaches, if there is any information above and beyond the info that Ford provides that I believe might be useful in the analysis, I'll share it.

Just from memory without doing a lot of checking.... The platform you are referring to is longitudinal FWD/AWD. Latitudinal FWD's (EW) have the vast majority of their engine/transmission weight in front of the front wheels. Of course you can make them AWD with a takeoff from the transmission and a shaft to the rear. This wouldn't be suitable for a RWD only because of the 65% weight over the front wheels. Longitudinal (NS - historical Audi) also had the majority of the engine/transmission weight in front of the front wheels. And they had a further problem with a long nose due to the ns engine mounting (the halfshafts which went to the front wheels came out near the back of the transmission). Audi revised the transmission design, and moved the halfshafts to the front of the transmission which allows the placement of the engine/transmission further rearward and improving weight distribution). Although I haven't checked, I think the engine is still further forward than a good RWD, hence probably still too much weight on front wheels? So this still wouldn't make a good design for RWD only. AWD from a longitudinal powertrain is a piece of cake, and Audi does it well. But their handling is still not as good as a BMW.

I agree. OK, I have knowledge of 3 different detailed studies trying to merge FWD and RWD platforms. After the first time, upper management issued severe beatings (wanna see the scars?) when you tried to say "we've already studied it, I can tell you the implications." So off to study it again. And again when a new VP refused to listen to previous studies, it was done a third time. These were each for different projects, and with different donor platforms, so it represents a good sample. It doesn't work. The problem is you start making changes from the front bumper beam back, and by time you get to the c-pillar, you've essentially bought an all new vehicle. The proportions of an FWD car are completely different from a RWD car. The crash signature is different. Too complicated to get into everything, and I think I have onset altzheimers since I can't remember all the details, but these studies were done on a part-by-part basis with full support from advanced engineering (including detailed package assessment), and they never made any sense financially. There is only one type of drive arrangement that might work. That's the one used in the Acura Legend IIRC. It was FWD, but the drive arrangement was pretty much the same as the front half of an RWD AWD system -- a PTO from the transmission with a shaft going forward and through the oil pan. But after you go to all that trouble, you have to ask, "why not just make it RWD?" So, in summary, this is pretty much a non-starter.

Oh, Oz is such a strange place. Water circulates in toilets counterclockwise, and your engines are mounted NS rather than EW.

To clarify, it wasn't the bean counters or the program team. It was Phil Martens (PD VP) exhibiting his usual dictatorial style mixed with a really healthy dose of poor judgment. Fortunately, he's long gone from Ford and he's not missed. Barb Smardzich was the Vehicle Line Director, and she saluted. The Chief Program Engineer argued, and was shunted off to the side to another job. It's true that the argument was over cost. it's also true that it caused a tearup to the rear of vehicle very late in development which most certainly increased development costs. But it wasn't in the hundreds of millions. You are correct that once the rear floorpan was redesigned, including IRS in the program even as an option disappeared. Also, there was no room at AAI in the chassis system to accomodate an optional rear suspension. PS. IRS was in the S197 program assumptions from the very first time they were detailed.

I agree. The greenies are, however, expecting a price drop on the Leaf when production begins in the U.S. at volume and the costs become dollar based versus yen based. We'll see. Some of these EV enthusiasts are absolutely rabid.

I don't quite agree that Ford can get the same R&D experience regardless of volume. BEV's are in their infancy. Manufacturers will be thirsting for data on how customers use their cars, and how the car is performing to customer useage. Very difficult, and it goes across a huge spectrum of geography, climate (regional and seasonal), useage patterns, charging times/frequency, and a host of other factors. I see GM in a great position to gather data, as all of their Volt data can be captured as part of OnStar. I don't think Ford has the same capability as part of MFT. Sure, engineers have done durability testing, but we won't know a lot until these vehicles are in service for an extended period. For instance, Ford and GM have taken a path of liquid cooled batteries. Is it really beneficial to battery longevity and charge? Is it beneficial to customers in terms of climate control and range, and do they notice it? Or should Ford go to air cooled (like the Leaf), and significanty reduce package size, cost, and weight amd try to get rid of that huge lump in the trunk? Also, see my comments above. Manufacturers will be subsidizing electric vehicles whether they like it or not if they hope to sell in California and other states that adopt ZEV mandates, so Ford needs to quickly determine Gen II direction and sort out how to rapidly get the costs down to reduce exposure. Early adopters of BEV technology are enthusiastic and also are likely to influence future purchasers IMO. Of course Ford can't afford unlimited losses on a product, but I think it makes sense to get FFE out there in respectable volumes. I'm thinking around 20k upa in the U.S. For reference, Nissan is capacitizing the Leaf for 150k upa in Tennessee; they also are making the components, including batteries, and are going to try to rapidly push down the cost and own the market. Whether they succeed or get holding a bag of fixed costs is TBD. But they represent a huge challenge, and Ford is playing defense right now on BEV's.

Dean, I think it's more than just PR, but it most certainly is a test bed and represents a good way for Ford to get vehicles in the field and gather lots of useful data. It has a lot to do with you and your fellow citizens in California who I think have been smoking too much of the good stuff. CARB is in the process of issuing yet another zero emissions mandate. And as goes California, so goes a bunch of other states that follow their lead. Some members of CARB have been quoted that they don't particularly care if manufacturers have to subsidize electric vehicles to make the required volume, because their other choice is to reduce their overall volume of conventional vehicle sales in California. Lose, lose. So Ford is compelled to get there, and quickly on electric car development. If Nissan can establish themselves as the "Prius of EV's", and Ford is viewed as an overpriced outsider, then there could be trouble regaining traction. We'll see. But these cars are going to be vitally important in the future.

Yep. The upper battery is a separate operation, but the motor, associated hardware, and lower battery are all installed in a similar manner to the IC engine Focus. Nissan does the same thing in Japan with the Leaf, although the plant in the U.S. is going to start out Leaf only. If you took the video in a couple of months, you would see the C-Max Hybrid and C-Max Energi mixed in on the same line. I suppose the guys/gals that install the upper battery on the Focus Electric will be the same ones installing the upper battery on the PHEV. But here's a lesson on what's called "trapped labor." What do these folks do when they don't have a FFE or C-Max Energi coming down the line? Something...but it probably doesn't have the work content of the battery loading and installation

True. But Ford did cause some confusion by having their Job 1 last year, but evidently did not really intend to start producing any sort of volume until now. Refer back to my comments on the Magna plant just now opening to supply components to support production. Nevertheless, most of the press has no idea what they are seeing or how to analyze data. This is still a very immature market with lots of fits and starts. Here are a couple of interesting videos on production of the FFE at MAP and you can see how it's being flexed into the main line: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQuEcOesZA

Although I haven't done the analysis, I understand (I actually started to do it yesterday on Excel, but then I caught myself and said "Why are you doing this??") The problem is that most people don't do comparably-equipped prices. So the visual price difference is around $4k. Look at how many articles have said that Ford's new products are "expensive." I saw another one the other day on the new Escape saying the same thing, but I've never seen any magazine or newspaper article doing the pencil work to sort out how much is due to equpment, and how much is pure pricing. We'll see. But with the BEV economics as they now are, you are really pushing even early adopters when you're above $35k. Or Ford is going to have to do a subvened lease program to match Leaf and Volt?

Focus EV Comments Thanks for posting. A couple of comments. 1. Magna announced yesterday the opening of their plant in Grand Blanc Township, MI to supply electric motors, inverters, and powertrain control modules for the Ford Focus BEV. http://www.magnaecar.com/media/press-releases-news/news-page/2012/04/16/news-release---magna-e-car-systems-debuts-new-manufacturing-facility 2. The comments within the "purist" and rather prissy BEV community are generally not very positive -- but none have driven it nor read any reviews. First, they don't like that Ford let Magna do the whole project (I don't know what the split of responsibility is, but I don't think customers are going to care). They view it as a conversion in part because of the package of the upper batter which swallows up a good portion of the trunk. And they don't like the price which is more expensive than the Leaf. But how much comments like these will affect actual sales is TBD. 3. For the price Ford is charging, this car needs to be a step above the Leaf. I'm not liking some of the comments on road noise, but this is just one review. Looking forward to a head-to-head. Hopefully, the Focus will have superior dynamics because the Leaf uses none-too-great Versa running gear. But whether customers will care is another matter. They don't seem to care that the Prius is a puffed up Corolla with a twist beam rear axle -- it's just not important to them. 4. Ford hasn't announced projected volumes, but of course they have to have some base, otherwise you don't know how to facilitize the component supply. Here are some comments on volume from Mullaly: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-17/ford-s-mulally-prepared-for-gradual-growth-in-battery-car-demand.html?cmpid=yhoo

Company leases are the first scheduled, but it's not always a good thing. Ideally, the company would like to get the vehicles in employee/retiree hands so they can report any problems quickly with minimal impact on "real" customers. But we're really also guinea pigs in the assembly process. Sometimes there is some minor problem that requires a new part or a fix. If that happens, these early units can be shuttled to "the back 40", the new parts support the build for customer units, and the units that need to be repaired can take quite a while to deliver. So, I'm not counting my chickens. Could be soon, or could be a couple of months....But I am anxious to get it; it'll be replacing a 2011 Explorer which is nice, but too large for my needs.

Mine was built, but not released. So I"m assuming the plant doesn't yet have "OK to Ship".

Mine was one of them; got built last week (i.e., they're also including company lease car orders).

Don't make a declarative statement unless you have data. I don't have data either. But I do know -- most unfortunately -- that there has been bad press and internet chat on the Getrag dual clutch which logically might lead some buyers to choose the manual over the auto.

This certainly has to be part of the explanation, and maybe the larger portion.