Top 4 stupid Ford decisions...

[TStag]

What are your top 4? Mine are:

 

1.) Not using a Jag/ Volvo suspension on the Mustang, and then failing to export it to Europe.

2.) Waiting till 2010 to expand Land Rover, when it's sales have risen year on year

3.) Killing the F type Jag, making Jag into a retro crazed company.

4.) Selling Aston Martin, when it's sales figures have doubled or even trebled, it's the second most profitable part of Ford (according to Top Gear) and it's possibly the only brand in the world that could give Porsche a run for it's money.

[RichardJensen]

"second most profitable part of Ford"

 

Uh. That's a negatory there good buddy.

[pcsario]

(according to Top Gear)

They didn't say it like that; it was just a casual discussion and Clarkson said he doesn't get why Ford is getting rid of what's basically the only profitable unit in the entire Ford business, obviously exaggerating a point as usual, because that would include FOE.

Edited March 5, 2007 by pcsario

[ZanatWork]

Yeah, A-M's annual profits are likely less money than a week's showings of the new Super Duty commercial.

 

Now, for my pics:

 

1. Everything

2. Jac

3. Nasser

4. Did.

 

 

Okay, unfair, I'll try again...

 

1. The accepted mediocrity of car programs in the 90's.

2. The belief that Jaguar could ever be high volume.

3. Leaving the US out of the better car programs (C1, Aussie Falcon, S-Max).

 

And...the obvious muck-up of 'em all....

 

...4. Not having me run Mercury since the beginning of the century.

[Mustang_Marty]

1) Letting the car lines stagnate while reaping SUV profits.

2) Being caught off guard when SUV sales dropped and gas prices went up

3) Delaying/cancelling future drivetrain technology.

4) Buying Jag and AM - Prestige purchases yes, but what has Ford gained from them.

5) Selling the heavy truck line

 

A few years ago I may have said overpaying for Volvo, but it looks like Ford is finally making good use of that purchase.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Mustang_Marty

[TStag]

A few years ago I may have said overpaying for Volvo, but it looks like Ford is finally making good use of that purchase.

 

Same logic will apply to Jag in a few years time I think.

 

The reason I think selling Aston is a big mistake it as follows:

- Aston Martin is now considered to be one of THE prestige brands in the world

- It's product line stretches from 911 territory into Lambo territory

- It's the fastest growing premium brand in the world (FASTER EVEN THAN PORSCHE)

- It's very pofitable

- Rapide will take Aston Martin into Bentley territory

- Aston Martin Lagonda could work on an SUV (taking them into Porsche SUV market)

- In the UK it is undoubtable viewed as making the coolest cars (see Top Gear wall of fame)

- Why have their been a queue of bidders? See above

- IF Aston achieves Porsche profitability then it could afford to buy Ford. That's why this is a STUPID move!

[jpd80]

1. Alex Trottman's way too expensive DEW98 - That started the demise of RWD.

2. Jac Nasser's failure to start reforms at Ford in 1997 - That cost Billions more today.

3. Jac Nasser cancelling DEW Lite platform - Not providing Lincoln, Mustang and FoA with a cheaper alternative.

4. Lee Iacocca, in 1978 he was notoriously fired by Henry II - Despite Ford's posting a $2 billion dollar profit for the year

[g48150]

Here's mine:

 

1. Giving Chris Theodore "the boot" through "retirement"

2. Giving Lee Iaococca "the boot"

3. Failure to share the burden of Systems Engineering with the suppliers (or just failure to share ______, in general)

4. Giving an obvious genius (Chip Foose) free reign to design a "mass market" automobile, this from the "king of customs" is going to appeal to a swarm of American Idol fans? Before you throw me under the bus with Carrol Shelby, at least Shelby's been doing this for awhile...

[7Mary3]

4 Stupid decisions:

1. Buying Jaguar, Range Rover, and Aston Martin.

2. Using the Modulars in trucks.

3. Letting Lincoln die.

4. Replacing the 7.3L Powerstroke with the 6.0L.

 

4 Good decisions:

1. Buying Mazda and Volvo Cars.

2. The new Mustang.

3. Selling the heavy truck division.

4. Developing the 'Boss' engine family.

 

4 Decisions that need to happen:

1. Sell Jaguar, Range Rover, and Aston Martin.

2. Not have any relationship with Navistar whatsoever.

3. The 'Panthers'- either redesign or discontinue them.

4. Make a serious commitment to fixing Lincoln.

[RichardJensen]

Oh, I love the people that say firing Lee Iacocca was a bad idea.

 

Iacocca was a terrible employee at the end of his tenure. Regardless of whose name was on the building, you don't try to pull a powerplay and go to the board of directors to get your boss fired.

[jpd80]

Oh, I love the people that say firing Lee Iacocca was a bad idea.

 

Iacocca was a terrible employee at the end of his tenure. Regardless of whose name was on the building, you don't try to pull a powerplay and go to the board of directors to get your boss fired.

 

Iacocca did admit to being a bit power mad in the late 1970s and I wonder if his vast influenced troubled Henry FordII.

Was Henry worried that Iacocca would squeeze out William Clay Ford Snr? Possibly.

The triumveriate was an attempt to kerb his power, Iacocca, Henry II, William Clay Snr. If that wasn't enough, he then he adds Philip Caldwell, deputy CEO Further eroding Iacocca's voice. I wonder if Iacocca felt he had no choice but to go to the board, trying to stop Henry II controlling everything. Funny, not long after Iacocca got the boot, Henry II retired as CEO and Chairman, Caldwell was then elected CEO.

 

The more I researched this topic the more names popped up. I guess you cant look at just one player in isolation. Maybe Ford was counterbalances with quite a few stromg personalities. Iacocca's promenance caused a reaction and counter reaction. Perhaps it was a changing in the guard for both sides. Phillip Caldwell was the first non-family CEO.

 

A very interesting read indeed.

Edited March 6, 2007 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

Lacey's Ford, the Men and the Machine remains the definitive account of the late 70s struggle at Ford.

 

Lacey had access to the entire Ford archives, as well as interviews with parties and observers that could still recall what happened.

 

The picture he paints is equally unflattering towards HFII, who bullied his family, and took delight in squashing Lido's palace revolts, and Iacocca himself, who wanted the top job badly enough to destroy parts of the company to get it.

 

HFII had determined long before 1978 that Iaccoca was not going to become CEO, and he didn't retire until he could do so, and turn over the office to someone else.

 

In the long run, HFII was right for the wrong reasons. Iacocca, who had obtained power at Ford through means that would have made Livia Drusilla blush, would have wielded it in similar fashion, and probably would've gutted Ford.

[retro-man]

My picks, in order of regret:

 

 

1.) Putting all their eggs in the truck and SUV basket.

2.) Letting Lincoln die.

3.) Not giving us the 390hp supercharged motor and 6-speed manual transmission in our T-Birds that J Mays and Jac Nassers own cars had.

4.) Not taking a leadership position (at least not a very visible one) on green technologies - which brings us back to 1.

[jpd80]

Gee, we all have something different to pick with Ford. I guess when so much is known about an organisation it's easy to see all the mistakes. Seems like issues stemming from today back to 35 years ago, plenty to choose from. Perhaps this generally covers a heap in one go:

1. Infighting and lack of long term purpose.

2. Failure to follow prescribed reform measures.

3. Failure to have consistent product roll out.

4. Failure to understand customers' changing needs.

 

Maybe history has a more sanitised view of GM and Chrysler compared to Ford's public record? Can't seem to find much on either.

Edited March 6, 2007 by jpd80

[fllcobra]

Sell Aston Martin now. The automotive market is cyclical. What is hot today will be stale in two years unless significant amounts of money are pumped into it.

[ebritt]

What are your top 4? Mine are:

 

1.) Not using a Jag/ Volvo suspension on the Mustang, and then failing to export it to Europe.

2.) Waiting till 2010 to expand Land Rover, when it's sales have risen year on year

3.) Killing the F type Jag, making Jag into a retro crazed company.

4.) Selling Aston Martin, when it's sales figures have doubled or even trebled, it's the second most profitable part of Ford (according to Top Gear) and it's possibly the only brand in the world that could give Porsche a run for it's money.

No need to use Jag/Volvo suspension on Mustang. KEEP IT SIMPLE! Live axle is reliable and cheap! The Mustang is a MUSCLE CAR not a sports car or exotic! Keep it within the average joe's reach and have some high end options. In other words...don't f--- up a good thing.

[NickF1011]

What are your top 4? Mine are:

 

1.) Not using a Jag/ Volvo suspension on the Mustang, and then failing to export it to Europe.

 

Because everyone would be more than happy to shell out 5-6K more for their Mustang, right?

 

2.) Waiting till 2010 to expand Land Rover, when it's sales have risen year on year

:huh: LR launched the new Range Rover Sport not very long ago and the new LR2 is coming out THIS YEAR. The LR2 alone may come close to doubling LR's sales volume. I just don't see where you're coming from on this one at all.

 

3.) Killing the F type Jag, making Jag into a retro crazed company.

 

I would say the new XK and XF are far from retro. Sure, they screwed the pooch for awhile, but it looks like they are back on track. The new XJ is supposedly a vast departure from its current "classic" lines as well.

 

4.) Selling Aston Martin, when it's sales figures have doubled or even trebled, it's the second most profitable part of Ford (according to Top Gear) and it's possibly the only brand in the world that could give Porsche a run for it's money.

 

You need to put AM in perspective. It may draw the most profit PER UNIT and may be growing the fastest, but that's not very difficult when you only sell 5000 cars a year (which is nowhere near Porsche, BTW). They are certainly far from the most profitable entity in the entire corporation. Besides, it appears as though Ford's plan is to maintain a minority stake in the brand.

[Gnostic]

Gee, we all have something different to pick with Ford. I guess when so much is known about an organisation it's easy to see all the mistakes. Seems like issues stemming from today back to 35 years ago, plenty to choose from. Perhaps this generally covers a heap in one go:

1. Infighting and lack of long term purpose.

2. Failure to follow prescribed reform measures.

3. Failure to have consistent product roll out.

4. Failure to understand customers' changing needs.

 

Maybe history has a more sanitised view of GM and Chrysler compared to Ford's public record? Can't seem to find much on either.

 

 

exactly, all the other problems start with these.

[grbeck]

My top four:

 

1. Allowing the head-gasket eating 3.8 V-6 and trouble-prone automatic transmission to be installed in Tauruses, Sables and Windstars for far too long, permanently alienating buyers in the crucial middle segments of the market. Ford should have had a modern, ohc engine ready by 1989 at the latest, as the Accord was upsized for the 1990 model year, thus giving the Taurus its first real competition.

 

2. Allowing the Taurus/Sable to rot on the vine after the buying public gave the 1996 restyle an underwhelming reception. Ford should have licked its wounds and come out with an all-new model for 2000 at the latest.

 

3. Allowing Lincoln to deteriorate into a brand that offers nothing more than restyled Fords, while Cadillac has moved ahead, and the imported brands continue to grow. The LS was a promising car that went nowhere, and while the Town Car does well with livery customers, it has very little appeal to retail customers in its current form.

 

4. Focusing on the truck and SUV market to the extent that passenger car offerings became outdated and stale (it could be said that #2 and #3 are the result of this one).

 

As for the firing of Lee Iacocca - by the time Henry Ford II fired him, his best years at Ford were behind him. Iacocca's strengths were sales, marketing and styling, which suited the 1960s, when the foreign competitors were relatively weak, gas mileage wasn't a big concern, and the full impact of government mandates had yet to be felt.

 

When faced with the challenges of the 1970s, he did nothing to improve long-term reliability (although Ford's build quality was better than the build quality of GM and Chrysler), labor relations or plant productivity. Even among the domestic companies, Ford was not a leader - nor did it show much creativity - in meeting either the ever-tightening Clean Air Act standards or the CAFE requirements.

 

Remember that he initially mocked the "aero" look 1983 Thunderbird/Cougar and 1986 Taurus/Sable, so it's doubtful that Ford would have produced those cars if he had been in charge. He approved the butt-ugly 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar, and Chryslers produced under his watch during the 1980s were hardly beautiful or ground-breaking - just the same boxy look, flabby suspensions and tacky interiors applied to a front-wheel-drive platform.

 

Philip Caldwell and Donald Petersen were much better choices to lead the company through the very difficult years of the early 1980s. Whatever his faults, Henry Ford II made the right call on this one.

Edited March 6, 2007 by grbeck

[kyle]

Hummm....just 4 things heh? Might be kind of hard.

 

1. not partnering with honda back in the 70's? think henry had a chance to buy some of them and use their engine technology and was clearly against having a jap engine in a ford car-boy if he could be alive today.

 

2. not investing in china earlier-basically they blew all their money buying volvo, landrover and repairing jaguar, plus all kinds of other shit-no money-think that decision may haunt them for a long, long time.

 

3. completely ignoring the japanese and the inroads they were making in the 70's and early 80's.

 

4. launching and abandon or completely walking away from huge segments of the market because you failed to update your product.

[Joe771476]

1) Selling heavy truck line, since DCX's entire collection of trucks consisting of Mercedes, Freightliner, Sterling (formerly Ford heavy), Western Star, and also Detroit Diesel have kept DCX in the black while it's Chrysler arm -- and even Mercedes cars for a while there -- has faltered.

2) Paying too much for Jaguar and then investing billions more to make it a high volume brand.

3) Paying too much for Volvo and Land Rover, although they are probably going to turn into profit sources eventually.

4) Not continuing to update the Taurus and then discontinuing the name altogether, until

recently.

5) Not giving Mercury and Lincoln UNIQUE vehicles!

[7Mary3]

I still say selling the heavy truck division was a sound idea. At least part of the proof is in the fact that Freightliner has not done very well with Sterling (the former Ford heavy truck operation). Freightliner specializes in commercial vehicles. The part I didn't understand was why did Ford spend all the money to redesign the heavy trucks only to sell the line less than 2 years later? I was told that the 1996 Louisville trucks were more than 2 years late to market and way over budget, so maybe Ford just wanted out as quickly as possible. In any event, it took Ford until 1997 to figure out what Chrysler knew in 1975 and GM knew in 1988: Heavy trucks represent a poor ROI for high volume auto manufacturers. It's a specialized field best left to companies like PACCAR.

[630land]

Well, have to look at the whole picture

 

1. Henry Ford I's senility letting 'goons' run the place before grandson HF2 took over

2. SUV addiction, Trotman saying "who cares?" to car sales.

3. Nassar taking down the blue oval, what did he think the name would change to Nassar Motor Co?

4. Keeping 'Road hugging weight boats" around, while GM was getting better mileage and sales with 1977+ B bodies.

[jpd80]

Because everyone would be more than happy to shell out 5-6K more for their Mustang, right?

There was no price penalty when FoA changed to IRS on their Falcon and the Control Blade IRS reduces the weight penalty considerably. It's an ingenious development using stamped members in a lightweight frame, handle and ride quality functions can be tuned separately. They took a long time to give up the Watts Link SRA.

 

Having said all that, the V8 Super tourers with 600 Hp racing engines still use an adjustable watts link SRA. Trials a few years back found while IRS improved handling, the Watts link with adjustable roll centre gave a better balance between straight line traction and cornering. Watts Link is superior to the old Panhard Rod SRA.

 

For the Mustang a simple do would be Watts link and give owners some adjustability on the roll centre.

 

So you be the judge,

If you're fortunate to have a good CB IRS - be happy.

The best SRA is a quality Watts link with roll centre adjustment.

[David Johnson]

Jag. $12 Billion down the drain.

Edited March 6, 2007 by David Johnson