where is the 08 focus??

[silvrsvt]

With FoA deciding to use this 2008 redesigned Focus as a gap filler for 2 years, when the supposedly C2 Focus will appear in North America, does not instill much confidence that FoA is doing much different, then what they have been doing. Just the same ole story, using some time line excuses.

 

The problem is that the current Focus was in development about 4 years ago before the regime change at Ford. Things won't change overnight...

[MKII]

The problem is that the current Focus was in development about 4 years ago before the regime change at Ford. Things won't change overnight...

 

Please explain then why Phil Martens said at the end of 2004, In the coming years, Ford cars will have a distinctly global flavor. Three basic platforms will comprise the bulk of Ford's automotive lineup through 2008, with Mazda and Volvo providing the building blocks for Ford, Mercury and Lincoln. Reference to C1 platform- Ford's North American Focus willjoin this architecture in approximately three years when all Volvo, Ford, Mazda, and Mercury small cars and crossovers adopt this platform. Cost concerns kept Ford from launching the Focus on this platform this year(MY2005).

 

http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/090401.html

 

I believe cost concerns for the MY2010/11 C2 Focus will raise its ugly head again, assumption based on the mucho $$$'s used to redesign the gap filler 2008 C170.

[RichardJensen]

That article also says nothing at all about EUCD.

[MKII]

That article also says nothing at all about EUCD.

 

Not in detail but " Three basic platforms" will comprise the bulk of Ford's automotive lineup through 2008, with "Mazda C1,CD3" and "Volvo C1+or EUCD" providing the building blocks for Ford, Mercury and Lincoln"

 

My point in this post is regarding the C170 Focus.

 

MY2005 - excuse - money (cost concerns)

MY2008- excuse - try again in 2 years (cost concerns)

MY2010 - excuse Fill in the blank (_____) ? Good chance FoA will use the excuse that 2008 redesign is good enough for market, plus $$$ spent on 2008 redesign.(cost concerns)

Edited May 24, 2007 by MKII

[RichardJensen]

The article's predictions are screwed up. CD3 was never intended to exist alongside EUCD.

 

Also, in 2004, it was known that C170 was not being replaced with C1 in the U.S.; an October 2004 rundown of future models by the generally well-informed Amy Wilson (Auto News) correctly stated that C1 wasn't coming to the U.S.

 

That article contains some notable inaccuracies about Ford's future efforts.

 

Further, your prediction of future actions based on past excuses is specious at best. I'm actually paying it a complement by saying it's specious. For most people, it's not even that.

 

The actual, as opposed to the asserted, reasons for opting to go with C170 in 2004 & this year, are the true starting points from which you should base any prediction of Ford's actual motivations in 2012. Further, you should consult the list of responsible parties in the 2001-2004 era, when the decisions about C170 vs. C1 were made, and try and figure out how many of them are STILL at Ford, let alone predicting how many of them will be in positions of responsibility in the next few years.

 

Finally, you need to weigh the CEO's well publicized aim at reducing parts count and complexity against your hunch that Ford executives will do something you don't want (based on a history, apparently, of disappointing you).

[MKII]

Indeed the article predictions are as you put it screwed up. But you have to admit that reading the article at that "time" made it possible for Focus consumers to hope that the C1 would be in North America for MY2008.

 

The fact of the matter remains that competitors are offering Americans higher quality compact cars and Americans are buying them.

Ford doesn’t think Americans want a higher quality compact – or that we’d be willing to pay for it, and many posters here use this same theory in their arguments. But the competition appears to be making Ford's excuse a bad decision.

[RichardJensen]

Indeed the article predictions are as you put it screwed up. But you have to admit that reading the article at that "time" made it possible for Focus consumers to hope that the C1 would be in North America for MY2008.

 

The fact of the matter remains that competitors are offering Americans higher quality compact cars and Americans are buying them.

Ford doesn’t think Americans want a higher quality compact – or that we’d be willing to pay for it, and many posters here use this same theory in their arguments. But the competition appears to be making Ford's excuse a bad decision.

1) Focus fans should be aware that Amy Wilson is probably the savviest reporter on the Ford beat. What she says is generally more accurate (and more balanced) than any of her peers. Just a tip going forward--if she contradicts any other published rumors--her info is probably better.

 

2) Quality is a relative term: the Focus is probably one of the more reliable compacts out there--it's certainly more in the Civic/Corolla league than the Cobalt/Caliber league--two outsize issues are interior appointments and overall style. The '08 Focus makes a solid effort at addressing both concerns. Whether the style works or not, I don't know--I'm not the target, and I'm not aware enough of the target's tastes to venture a guess. At the very least interior materials have been improved, optional equipment has been improved, and so give Ford credit at least for working on the C170's weak spots (NVH and stateside, optional equipment and interior quality).

 

3) There is a difference between what Ford does and what people at Ford think. Doubtless there are people at Ford that think Americans 'don't want a higher quality compact', however, looking at the range of options which, air conditioned seats and genuine metal trim excepted, are no different than the options available on the highest priced Lincoln, it seems that Ford is not trying to package the Focus as a vehicle defaulted to by hard up consumers.

[BORG]

Can the Focus ever escape the rental car "Fuckus" image, especially with such a peculiar face lift? I don't think Ford can find success with the Focus brand, despite its recent quality scores.

Edited May 24, 2007 by BORG

[el norte]

Can the Focus ever escape the rental car "Fuckus" image, especially with such a peculiar face lift? I don't think Ford can find success with the Focus brand, despite its recent quality scores.

numbnut!

[silvrsvt]

My point in this post is regarding the C170 Focus.

 

MY2005 - excuse - money (cost concerns)

MY2008- excuse - try again in 2 years (cost concerns)

MY2010 - excuse Fill in the blank (_____) ? Good chance FoA will use the excuse that 2008 redesign is good enough for market, plus $$$ spent on 2008 redesign.(cost concerns)

 

If you do some more research the C170 Focus was supposed to be in NA for 10 years so they could make a profit on it. This was stated several times in articles after the Focus launched.

 

As for cost concerns, why are we getting a Global B-car then? Same cost savings would be factored in with a move to the C2 platform, which would make the Focus more profitable since it wouldn't be a C car selling at B-car prices

[MKII]

If you do some more research the C170 Focus was supposed to be in NA for 10 years so they could make a profit on it. This was stated several times in articles after the Focus launched.

 

As for cost concerns, why are we getting a Global B-car then? Same cost savings would be factored in with a move to the C2 platform, which would make the Focus more profitable since it wouldn't be a C car selling at B-car prices

 

Please show the articles that stated "several times" that the C170 when launched would have a life span of 10 years in N.A.

 

Your 2nd point has merit, lets see if FoA can execute it.

[630land]

Saw this in Top Gear magazine today about the C1 in England. Not exact quote, but go to a Borders and look it up.

 

"Current Focus is as conservative and the original was daring, but it rides/handles better"

 

So, looks like the C1 is not the "cancer cure". It would be a 3 year old car now, and analysts would lump it in with the first 500 as 'one of the dull designs introduced lately'. The C1 hatches look like old Aspires or GM X cars. I'm sure Car and Driver would love the handling, but pan the looks. It probably would have sold OK, but by now, they usual comments of "dated" would be applied, as the press does for most car design [except Honda/Toyota/BMW] over 2 years old.

[jpd80]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...round+the+globe

When Mulally was reviewing the company's 2008 product line last September, for example,

he was told that Ford loses close to $3,000 every time a customer buys a Focus compact, according to one executive. "Why haven't you figured out a way to make a profit?" he asked. Executives explained that Ford needed the high sales volume to maintain the company's CAFE, or corporate average fuel economy, rating and that the plant that makes the car is a high-cost UAW factory in Michigan. "That's not what I asked," he shot back. "I want to know why no one figured out a way to build this car at a profit, whether it has to be built in Michigan or China or India, if that's what it takes."

 

Nobody had a good answer.

 

$3,000 lost on every Focus sold in NA.

The 2008 Focus will only continue the madness of losing $4.5 Million every month.

Hardly worth making the damn things, just import C1s and save $50 Million/year

[MKII]

$3,000 lost on every Focus sold in NA.

The 2008 Focus will only continue the madness of losing $4.5 Million every month.

Hardly worth making the damn things, just import C1s and save $50 Million/year

 

Weary corporate lifers have become all too comfortable with the idea of losing money. Mediocrity is acceptable.

[ZanatWork]

Do you say the same about the Model T, or the Mustang of the 60's? Sounds to me like you, and everybody else, bash the 80's Taurus because it stands for everything good that this company is capable of, has done, and could accomplish again.

 

 

Some of us can see through the stacks of b.s. propping up the Taurus legend.

 

1. Referenes to its heavy sleet sales were rife the MAJORITY of its existence.

 

2. Anyone that wants to try telling me that the car has ever been a shining example of quality will have years of automotive aftermarket sales and references to climb through. Blame the industry's less-than-stellar quality issues of that era if you must, but the Taurus was part of the problem.

 

3. The best thing the Taurus did was turn heads, using its rounded edges to show its difference in approach to the boxy bales o' boredom from GM, Chrysler...and the mainstream imports. Remembering that the car was a pretty shameless Audi 5000 copy is good for reference here.

 

 

The Taurus was very different when it came out, and the imports were still learning the game. Now, the imports are running the table and Ford can't simply pluck a desirable high-buck Eurocar to copy this time...none of them are different or daring enough.

 

For Ford to climb back into the #2 spot, the exact same approach that beat them will be needed: constant improvement across the board applied patiently.

[jpd80]

What I'd like to know is if Ford intend rectifying losing $3,000 /car on every Focus sold in the US.

If producing the Focus is meerly to offset CAFE numbers, how can Ford expect to make money on the 2008 Focus?

Wouldn't it be better to get your CAFE in order by improving economy across the whole fleet?

Edited May 29, 2007 by jpd80

[LSFan00]

The measure of success for the Focus should be if folks are asking questions about it vis a vis the class leaders;

 

Is the new Focus better than the Civic?

 

Instead, the questions are;

 

Is it enough of an improvement to hold Ford over until the all new Focus comes out?

Will Ford have to keep selling those dogs at a loss?

 

I'm not holding my breath waiting to see a lot full of them, but it will be fun to check one out at the airport eventually. How do you feel about the explanation Mulally got about the Focus, Pioneer?

 

Why haven't you figured out a way to make a profit?" he asked. Executives explained that Ford needed the high sales volume to maintain the company's CAFE, or corporate average fuel economy, rating and that the plant that makes the car is a high-cost UAW factory in Michigan. "That's not what I asked," he shot back. "I want to know why no one figured out a way to build this car at a profit, whether it has to be built in Michigan or China or India, if that's what it takes."

 

Nobody had a good answer.

[silvrsvt]

Personally, I'm not worried about the Fusion's styling. If rumors are true, and it is to be merged with the next gen Mondeo, then all will be right. The Europeans would never buy a vehicle that is styled like the Fusion, so the next gen Fusion will probably have a more "Mondeoish" look.

 

Guess you never saw the article where Ford's NA and Euro Design chiefs said that the designs wouldn't meet in the middle of the Atlantic...I'm sure that they will be tailored to their home markets.

[wescoent]

Please someone explain to me why the C170 platform is fundamentally inferior, aside from the fact that it ISN'T C1. Everything I've read on the platforms indicates that the C170 is a lighter platform that is more sharply-tuned than C1. C1 has an emphasis on refinement and safety (for its Volvo application), hence its heft.

 

The 2005-2007 Focus was a great competitor, aside from its STYLING and interior quality. Explain to me why, with ALL-NEW sheetmetal and interior parts, this Focus WOULDN'T beat the Civic. I presume Ford's main goal with the 08 Focus was improving on the Focus's faults, namely, styling and interior quality.

 

Styling is tough on a tall vehicle in the C-segment. Either you have ridiculous (yet distinctive) designs like the Focus and Civic, utterly boring and forgettable designs like the Corolla and Cobalt, or hideous designs like the Sentra, Caliber, and Scions. The only vehicle I find remotely attractive is the 2008 Lancer.

[suv_guy_19]

Please someone explain to me why the C170 platform is fundamentally inferior, aside from the fact that it ISN'T C1. Everything I've read on the platforms indicates that the C170 is a lighter platform that is more sharply-tuned than C1. C1 has an emphasis on refinement and safety (for its Volvo application), hence its heft.

 

I've often wondered the same thing...I really am starting to think that it is a "grass is always greener on the other side" type of thing..and I really think the same about the mondeo...i just don't buy the "Europe has better stuff" argument.

[Ford-150]

why can't we have this focus, i would actually buy this one

[RichardJensen]

I really am starting to think that it is a "grass is always greener on the other side" type of thing

:yup:

[630land]

why can't we have this focus, i would actually buy this one

 

 

People claim they would buy one, but then end up gettting some used whatever, since 'cant afford it'. And richies with $$ to spend will not get a dolled up Focus. For the same $$ one can get a entry luxury car or sporty coupe. Cuz to be able to offer the AWD Turbo cars, Ford would have to sell 10 times as many plain ones. Look a plain or SE version of a C2 hatch back, and the 'naysayers' would have panned its

bland and conservative stylings. To me it looks like an old 80's hatchback, and so would most buyers.

 

How well is the MazdaSpeed 3 5 door moving? Gets raves, but where are they?

 

Some 'enthusiasts' assume that all car companies should simply sell 'fast and furious' cars. As if that is all that would sell. Subaru has the WRX as a halo car, but mostly they sell regular wagons that are far from 'fast/furiuous/whatever the trendy slang word of the month

[RichardJensen]

Ford has axed the 2nd gen Focus RS.

[Blueblood]

People claim they would buy one, but then end up gettting some used whatever, since 'cant afford it'. And richies with $ to spend will not get a dolled up Focus. For the same $ one can get a entry luxury car or sporty coupe. Cuz to be able to offer the AWD Turbo cars, Ford would have to sell 10 times as many plain ones. Look a plain or SE version of a C2 hatch back, and the 'naysayers' would have panned its

bland and conservative stylings. To me it looks like an old 80's hatchback, and so would most buyers.

 

How well is the MazdaSpeed 3 5 door moving? Gets raves, but where are they?

 

Some 'enthusiasts' assume that all car companies should simply sell 'fast and furious' cars. As if that is all that would sell. Subaru has the WRX as a halo car, but mostly they sell regular wagons that are far from 'fast/furiuous/whatever the trendy slang word of the month

 

 

Here people is a perfect example of why Ford is close to going out of business, here is your mediocre "good enough" type of thinking that is on it's way out at Ford.

 

Mulally is firing people who think like this, a shame we can't get them to stop parroting this old pr all over the boards...