ANTAUS Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 LINK-Detroit News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Thanks Daniel Howes, a.k.a Cpt. Obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I would challenge his assertion that Mullaly hasn't run off some prima donnas - Phil Martens for one, and I think Nick Scheele also. And Alan Thursfield, as well. I can't remember the timing of their departures, but most were after Mullaly arrived, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I would challenge his assertion that Mullaly hasn't run off some prima donnas - Phil Martens for one, and I think Nick Scheele also. And Alan Thursfield, as well. I can't remember the timing of their departures, but most were after Mullaly arrived, IIRC. From what I could find.... Phil Martens - October 2005 Nick Scheele - December 2004 David Thursfield - August 2003 - He then came back for a short time to advise Bill Ford on the turnaround, but left again shortly thereafter to head to Cerberus. All well before Mullaly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 The honeymoon had to end sometime, plus the article does raise some interesting points. I liked this part: "Ford needs 100 Alans," says another source who has worked closely with Mulally. "They need people who are going to question why they do things the way they do. They need to take off the rearview mirrors and start looking out through the windshield at the road ahead and drive past the competition." ...in other words, less "bububu don't call it mediocre, use competitive instead" guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 The honeymoon had to end sometime, plus the article does raise some interesting points. I liked this part: ...in other words, less "bububu don't call it mediocre, use competitive instead" guys. Agreed....unfortunately, those changes won't happen overnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Will this article also contain a reference to Mulally's honeymoon? I like Howes some of the time. Other times it looks like he just puts the last week's worth of automotive news into a blender and e-mails the result to his editor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I would challenge his assertion that Mullaly hasn't run off some prima donnas - Phil Martens for one, and I think Nick Scheele also. And Alan Thursfield, as well. I can't remember the timing of their departures, but most were after Mullaly arrived, IIRC. I will feel better when Richard Parry-Jones is long gone from company. Also, I will feel better when there is more sense of urgency at Ford. Reading about the new Cadillac CTS sure underlines how much Ford is playing catchup. The technology crosstown rival GM is coming out with now is still many months away at Ford. Ford is going to really have to speed things up just to catchup let alone pass anyone. It always sounds like Ford is just starting work on project instead of being on ball months ago so this stuff gets out in timely fashion. Ford doesn't have time on its side and can't take years to catch up to competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I will feel better when Richard Parry-Jones is long gone from company. Also, I will feel better when there is more sense of urgency at Ford. Reading about the new Cadillac CTS sure underlines how much Ford is playing catchup. The technology crosstown rival GM is coming out with now is still many months away at Ford. Ford is going to really have to speed things up just to catchup let alone pass anyone. It always sounds like Ford is just starting work on project instead of being on ball months ago so this stuff gets out in timely fashion. Ford doesn't have time on its side and can't take years to catch up to competition. And tech that Ford has, GM won't for months. I really don't see the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 And tech that Ford has, GM won't for months. I really don't see the point. You should see the "Why doesn't GM have this yet" responses to the Mondeo Active Suspension thread over on GMI! Synch is another home run idea as well. I don't really see any place GM is well ahead of Ford in tech except in the application of cylinder deactivation. Are you listening Ford?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laserwizard Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I will feel better when Richard Parry-Jones is long gone from company. Also, I will feel better when there is more sense of urgency at Ford. Reading about the new Cadillac CTS sure underlines how much Ford is playing catchup. The technology crosstown rival GM is coming out with now is still many months away at Ford. Ford is going to really have to speed things up just to catchup let alone pass anyone. It always sounds like Ford is just starting work on project instead of being on ball months ago so this stuff gets out in timely fashion. Ford doesn't have time on its side and can't take years to catch up to competition. Cadillac has nothing despite the slobber lathered over the hood of the supposedly new CTS. The problem with Cadillac and Lincoln is that they think luxury in terms of the old-fashioned way and that sticker price brings a level of exclusivity. Over at Lexus they build the car with impressive quality and attention to detail. The CTS is a laughing joke compared to the Camry-based Lexus model - and I HATE TOYOTA! Throughout the Cadillac stable you continue to see fake wood, disjointed interior design that all still looks like it was built to pad the coffers instead of to the sticker price. Cadillac may build a dynamic platform here or there that begs to be driven, but attention to DETAIL stops the moment the body goes on and when the interior is installed. I like some of the things Lincoln is doing with its wood and interior design, but the execution through materials comes across as cheap. Cadillac deserves no praise. They've done nothing but have the gall to sell $25k cars for $50k. Lexus may sell $35k cars for $50k, but the difference is immediate to the eye, to the nose, and to the seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_the_limey Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I will feel better when Richard Parry-Jones is long gone from company. Explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I will feel better when Richard Parry-Jones is long gone from company. Oh, you've opened a can of worms there old chum. jon_the_limey, Apologies for my comments the other day - Brain explosion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_the_limey Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I don't really see any place GM is well ahead of Ford in tech except in the application of cylinder deactivation. Are you listening Ford?? Very good SAE paper (2001-01-3591) by Ford on this, and basically whilst cylinder deactivation is good for engines with large throttled volumes and low vehicle mass (fuel economy being poor through high pumping losses), an engine that is right sized for the vehicle with suitable transmission ratios will get considerably less benefit. Not to mention the vibration issues and extra cost and complexity of cylinder deac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_the_limey Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Oh, you've opened a can of worms there old chum. jon_the_limey, Apologies for my comments the other day - Brain explosion. No problem! Have you heard the rumour about Falcon getting the Jag 5.0 V8? Really not sure about that one, but if Falcon continues to use the ZF auto I guess it makes some sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Cadillac has nothing despite the slobber lathered over the hood of the supposedly new CTS. The problem with Cadillac and Lincoln is that they think luxury in terms of the old-fashioned way and that sticker price brings a level of exclusivity. Over at Lexus they build the car with impressive quality and attention to detail. The CTS is a laughing joke compared to the Camry-based Lexus model - and I HATE TOYOTA! Throughout the Cadillac stable you continue to see fake wood, disjointed interior design that all still looks like it was built to pad the coffers instead of to the sticker price. Cadillac may build a dynamic platform here or there that begs to be driven, but attention to DETAIL stops the moment the body goes on and when the interior is installed. I like some of the things Lincoln is doing with its wood and interior design, but the execution through materials comes across as cheap. Cadillac deserves no praise. They've done nothing but have the gall to sell $25k cars for $50k. Lexus may sell $35k cars for $50k, but the difference is immediate to the eye, to the nose, and to the seat. If Lincoln and Cadillac are so "cheap" compared to other luxury brands, why do they outperform most of them in several JD Power and Strategic Vision studies? Why has Lincoln won interior design awards for the "cheap" MKZ? Both Lincoln and Cadillac are on the verge of a revival, with competitive products coming to every segment, and in some cases, creating entirely new segments. Lincoln's new products have been received very well by the market, as have Cadillac's more concerted efforts like the CTS and Escalade. Obviously the buying market is starting to disagree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) No problem! Have you heard the rumour about Falcon getting the Jag 5.0 V8? Really not sure about that one, but if Falcon continues to use the ZF auto I guess it makes some sense. Yes, but Orion will continue with small assembly line of 5.4 4V engines with increased power: - XR8 goes from 260 KW to 280 KW (370 Hp @ 5200) - GT Falcon goes from 290 Kw to 320 Kw (438 hp @ 5500) The Turbo 6 increases to 260 Kw (350 hp @ 5200) and should be offered across all models replacing the 5.4 3V which is being discontinued. The article picked up on a rumor about a 5.0 AJ, I think they might be reading BON posts. Are the AJ V8s that expensive or is it just the PAG auora? Could we see both the 5.0 V8 and Boss 5.8/6.2 in the Mustang/ Huntsman? Fuel economy with ZF auto is brilliant, Falcon 4.0 achieves 10.2 litres/100 km on euro city cycle, Thats near 28mpg - US22.4 mpg. Edited August 31, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 I will feel better when Richard Parry-Jones is long gone from company. Also, I will feel better when there is more sense of urgency at Ford. Reading about the new Cadillac CTS sure underlines how much Ford is playing catchup. The technology crosstown rival GM is coming out with now is still many months away at Ford. Ford is going to really have to speed things up just to catchup let alone pass anyone. It always sounds like Ford is just starting work on project instead of being on ball months ago so this stuff gets out in timely fashion. Ford doesn't have time on its side and can't take years to catch up to competition. Comparing the 2008 Focus against the Cobalt also shows that GM is behind in other market areas. The new Focus is nothing to brag about, but it really shows how lousy GM is in some areas. Another fine example is the 2008 Taurus versus the Impala. Sure the Impala sells like hotcakes these days, but honestly you can't say that GM is ahead of Ford in those two markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) Cadillac has nothing despite the slobber lathered over the hood of the supposedly new CTS. The problem with Cadillac and Lincoln is that they think luxury in terms of the old-fashioned way and that sticker price brings a level of exclusivity. Over at Lexus they build the car with impressive quality and attention to detail. The CTS is a laughing joke compared to the Camry-based Lexus model - and I HATE TOYOTA! Throughout the Cadillac stable you continue to see fake wood, disjointed interior design that all still looks like it was built to pad the coffers instead of to the sticker price. Cadillac may build a dynamic platform here or there that begs to be driven, but attention to DETAIL stops the moment the body goes on and when the interior is installed. I like some of the things Lincoln is doing with its wood and interior design, but the execution through materials comes across as cheap. Cadillac deserves no praise. They've done nothing but have the gall to sell $25k cars for $50k. Lexus may sell $35k cars for $50k, but the difference is immediate to the eye, to the nose, and to the seat. Doesn't Lexus use fake wood too?? Even the 'inferior'(which I dont believe at all) Lincolns use real wood! I also dont understand how the painted plastics such as the finish on the radio/a/c controls comes across as cheap in a 'Lincoln', but its perfectly alright in a 'Lexus' Also, in the article he says, "...named a global manufacturing czar, Ford of Europe President John Fleming, without publicly announcing it." I thought that Derrick Kuzak (sp?) was the global manufacturing czar. or, wait, is Kuzak the "global product czar"--or something along those lines? Sure the Impala sells like hotcakes these days, Sure it sells like hotcakes.......to rental fleets! Edited September 1, 2007 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Kuzak is responsible for engineering, Fleming for manufacturing. Someone else got put in charge of purchasing. I forget who. Anyway the idea is that you save money by having much the same vehicles built using the same methods and equipment and with the same parts sourced from the same vendors. It seems obvious, but it is rather hard to implement at a global corporation that has had autonomous purchasing, engineering, and manufacturing units for decades (in Ford's case, FoE has been more or less independent of Ford NA for about 50-60 years.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Kuzak is responsible for engineering, Fleming for manufacturing. Someone else got put in charge of purchasing. I forget who. Anyway the idea is that you save money by having much the same vehicles built using the same methods and equipment and with the same parts sourced from the same vendors. It seems obvious, but it is rather hard to implement at a global corporation that has had autonomous purchasing, engineering, and manufacturing units for decades (in Ford's case, FoE has been more or less independent of Ford NA for about 50-60 years.) FYI: Thomas K. Brown Global Purchasing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 (edited) Kuzak is responsible for engineering, Fleming for manufacturing. Someone else got put in charge of purchasing. I forget who. Anyway the idea is that you save money by having much the same vehicles built using the same methods and equipment and with the same parts sourced from the same vendors. It seems obvious, but it is rather hard to implement at a global corporation that has had autonomous purchasing, engineering, and manufacturing units for decades (in Ford's case, FoE has been more or less independent of Ford NA for about 50-60 years.) A good example is Falcon and the SUV Territory, they share about 45% of components. I'd suspect a similar case exists with Taurus, Taurus X and Flex also similar with Fusion/Edge. That 45% parts sharing saves an awful lot of money though. Edited September 1, 2007 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Thanks Daniel Howes, a.k.a Cpt. Obvious. It never ceases to amaze me that any douchebag can become a 'writer'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.