New Fusion to be Engineered in North America

[NickF1011]

I don't disagree with you. Ford has been working on this since the first Escort in the early 80's. I am just saying that old habits are hard to break. The US will design the next Focus, but they will copy the engineering already done on the European Focus. The US will design the next C/D car, but it will copy the engineering already done on the European EUCD.

 

Ugh. The "US" isn't designing anything. It just so happens that the engineering teams that were put together to design the next gen cars will be doing it in the United States. Why? Because the U.S. currently has the spare resources to do it. There's no other reasoning behind it.

[battyr]

The whole point of Ford's new global engineering effort is to avoid problems that exist on vehicles like the Fusion, Crown Vic, Mustang, etc. All vehicles moving forward are going to have the same engineering criteria applied to them, regardless of where they are designed. That's truly a monumental change in the way Ford used to do things. The end result? You don't have to rely on "Europe for designing cars", or the US for "designing the components". They can both be designed and engineered by whomever has the most resources available at the time.

 

That's what Ford intended to do when they designed the first generation Escort, the Contour, the First generation Focus, the 500, the C1 Focus, etc.

[NickF1011]

That's what Ford intended to do when they designed the first generation Escort, the Contour, the First generation Focus, the 500, the C1 Focus, etc.

 

Intentions only get you so far. They never followed through with those efforts.

[battyr]

Ugh. The "US" isn't designing anything. It just so happens that the engineering teams that were put together to design the next gen cars will be doing it in the United States. Why? Because the U.S. currently has the spare resources to do it. There's no other reasoning behind it.

 

You got me. It's hard to have a team working in the US when the boss works in Europe and vice-versa.

[battyr]

That's what Ford intended to do when they designed the first generation Escort, the Contour, the First generation Focus, the 500, the C1 Focus, etc.

 

In the case of the Escort, the Engineers in the US wanted an Escort that could be built in the US factories with out spending a lot of money on retooling. Now the Engineers that happen to work in the US have to design a Focus and Fusion that could be built in European, and other global factories.

[Edstock]

5 years is a long time in the world of CAD.

 

The point is, the on-going developments of ultra-wide bandwidth, giant hi-res video display panels, 3-D prototyping machinery, etc., have reached a level of development which means that a world-wide engineering design effort is doable today. Back in 2000 or so, the ingredients for this were still developmental. Now, senior management can really "see" the product of engineering wherever it is designed, without all the airline flights.

[rkisler]

In the case of the Escort, the Engineers in the US wanted an Escort that could be built in the US factories with out spending a lot of money on retooling. Now the Engineers that happen to work in the US have to design a Focus and Fusion that could be built in European, and other global factories.

 

Geez. Like I said, all of the engineering and manufacturing is worldwide now anyway.

 

And....the reverse of what you said is true. FoE has to also think about the US market rather than taking an arrogant position that U.S. drivers are somehow sub-human and "if it's good enough for Europe, it's certainly better than the U.S. needs." FoE was primarily responsible for the initial Focus quality disaster in the US -- in engineering, component specifications, manufacturing, and launch support. And they fell down on the job for the CDW27 (Contour/Mystique/Cougar) in an earlier age also.

 

But I think Ford is over the hump in all of that including the NIH (not invented here) syndrome which existed big time. Part of it is due to the sense of desperation and the drastically reduced engineering community. You simply don't have time to do anything else. Good video conferencing facilities and computer systems help also.

 

With Mazda moving out of the picture, the resources are going to be even tighter as more of the workload will fall on Ford central. And, it could get even worse. If, for instance, the basic platform responsibility of the Fiesta is moved to Ford from Mazda. Or if the basic platform design responsibility of the Ka is separated from Fiat....

[RichardJensen]

On EUCD, the S80, and V8s:

 

The S80 is not a pure EUCD implementation. It would be more accurate to say it has EUCD elements.

[Harley Lover]

On EUCD, the S80, and V8s:

 

The S80 is not a pure EUCD implementation. It would be more accurate to say it has EUCD elements.

More details, please (if you can).

[NickF1011]

More details, please (if you can).

 

I believe the S80 has an entirely different front subframe from EUCD.

[RichardJensen]

More details, please (if you can).

The rear suspension is entirely different, the floorpan is different, and I believe the engine cradle and front frame rails are significantly different. The front suspension, however, is substantially the same. (look at engine bay pics of the Mondeo & S80)

Edited March 25, 2009 by RichardJensen

[rkisler]

The rear suspension is entirely different, the floorpan is different, and I believe the engine cradle and front frame rails are significantly different. The front suspension, however, is substantially the same. (look at engine bay pics of the Mondeo & S80)

 

That's my understanding also.

 

Some other things to consider:

The next-gen C/D platform has to be around for a while. And while nobody wants to create new bits where there is no need, there is a good chance that the final result will be a blend of designs. The engineering team has both the CD3 and EUCD to look at in forming the new platform. On paper, the CD3 has superior suspension hardware, and is fully capable of packaging a V6, a hybrid, and AWD. The cost, however is higher than the EUCD which was based on the Focus.

 

I would expect that the new design would pick up a macpherson front suspension (either common or modified EUCD design), and control blade rear (common or modified EUCD design). Both of these would be for cost reasons hopefully without giving up too much in dynamic attributes and NVH.

 

The body structure, however, is where you'll see changes. The V6 package causes an extension to the front end with longer crash rails. The higher-than-Europe IIHS "standards" on side impact and now roof crush certainly would result in changes to the upperbody (but that's presumably being changed anyway for style). The underbody also will have to be changed to accommodate AWD which is not in the Mondeo now. And there is no better time than now to sort out where you want to go with this platform for HEV, PHEV, and/or BEV capability. So developing a good battery package is a must.

 

Of course, the investment cost to the manufacturing plants also has to be considered. The worst case would be a design that would cause a complete tearup of both Hermosillo and Genk (that won't happen, but the team need to ensure it doesn't drift in this direction).

 

One of the struggles in developing a common car between Europe and the US is how the capabilities of one market affect the other markets Europe doesn't need a longer front end if they stay with an all I lineup, for instance. Mazda, Honda and other manufacturers satisfy the two markets with two distinctly-sized products, but that solution was rejected by Ford's management.

 

The platform design team also has to consider whatever derivatives are on the table for Europe and the U.S. -- both the vehicle capability and the impact on the manufacturing facilities.

 

Given the timing, I'm assuming most or all of the up-front planning is done, and the team is now into implementation mode which is part of the reason for announcing the team location now.

[twintornados]

Guys, could you clarify something for me? Does the new S80 use the current EUCD platform or an updated version of EUCD? I ask because the S80 offers a V8, so if it rides on some version of the EUCD, wouldn't that suggest that much of the engineering work for a V6 to fit the chassis has already been done by Volvo?

Volvo S80 was on the Volvo P2 chassis...(which is the basis for Fords' D3 chassis) until 2006, then S80 was redesigned to the EUCD in 2007, Volvo refers to EUCD as P24.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EUCD_platform

Edited March 25, 2009 by twintornados

[ds91776]

The 1st/Previous Generation Volvo S80 was on the P2 platform that spawned the D3/4. P2 was also the basis for the V70/XC70. It currently underpins the S60 and XC90. The 2nd Gen/Current S80, V70, XC70, XC60 as well as the Ford Mondeo, S-MAX, Galaxy and Land Rover LR2 are all on EUCD.

Edited March 25, 2009 by ds91776

[MKII]

FoE was primarily responsible for the initial Focus quality disaster in the US -- in engineering, component specifications, manufacturing, and launch support.

 

Can you elaborate on this comment.

 

Reason I ask is I owned early model Foci (same model year) on both sides of the pond at the same time, and always wondered why the 2 cars seemed and felt to be quite different cars. Yes they looked almost identical, and driving dynamics were pretty much the same,

but besides those two items, as an owner I swear that the 2 cars did not have much in common.

Plus the inital quality disasters seemed to be worse for the N.A. Focus compared to the EU Focus as far as how many problems there were.

If I remember the N.A. 1st two years had 11 recalls, wereas the EU Focus 1st two years had 6.

 

 

Also if one studies the recalls and problems with the early Foci, why are these not common.

The only recall that was similar was a Door latch problems on cars built between September 1998 and November 1998 for the EU model,

and North America 2000-2005: Certain four door (sedan and wagon) and five door vehicles may have faulty rear door latches.

Edited March 25, 2009 by MKII

[RichardJensen]

As I understand it, it was a combination of factors:

 

brass being inflexible on launch deadlines, engineers being inflexible on specs, etc.

 

The problems came down to defects in QC and defects in unusual build procedures.

 

At the time, FOE was building things quite differently from FNA.

[Critic]

At the time, FOE was building things quite differently from FNA.

I can see the days of GLOBAL RECALLS in the future now. Ouch, and that leads to everyone, everywhere complaining about a producer. And the producer of the part will be a sub-assembly component manufacturer, not the actual name-plate. So this is where the jockeying of Large component makers was leading to, but now their hurting more than the name-plates.

[RichardJensen]

Global recalls are already here: for Toyota. Too lazy to find the link. Foggy headlights.....

[battyr]

I can see the days of GLOBAL RECALLS in the future now. Ouch, and that leads to everyone, everywhere complaining about a producer. And the producer of the part will be a sub-assembly component manufacturer, not the actual name-plate. So this is where the jockeying of Large component makers was leading to, but now their hurting more than the name-plates.

 

Are the recalls a result of a design flaw or defective parts from a supplier?

 

European and US cars could use the same parts from the same supplier, but they could be built in different plants.

[Critic]

Are the recalls a result of a design flaw or defective parts from a supplier?

BOTH

 

FIXED

Edited March 26, 2009 by Critic

[rkisler]

Can you elaborate on this comment.

 

Reason I ask is I owned early model Foci (same model year) on both sides of the pond at the same time, and always wondered why the 2 cars seemed and felt to be quite different cars. Yes they looked almost identical, and driving dynamics were pretty much the same,

but besides those two items, as an owner I swear that the 2 cars did not have much in common.

Plus the inital quality disasters seemed to be worse for the N.A. Focus compared to the EU Focus as far as how many problems there were.

If I remember the N.A. 1st two years had 11 recalls, wereas the EU Focus 1st two years had 6.

 

 

Also if one studies the recalls and problems with the early Foci, why are these not common.

The only recall that was similar was a Door latch problems on cars built between September 1998 and November 1998 for the EU model,

and North America 2000-2005: Certain four door (sedan and wagon) and five door vehicles may have faulty rear door latches.

 

MKII, unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge to give you a full explanation. I can only set the tone and give you some opinions.

 

1. Opinion -- I've worked with Mazda and FoE and despite the time and language differences, I would rather work with Mazda any day of the week. I think I could summarize it like this. Mazda was smart enough to know that they did not fully understand the US market, so they ask lots of questions and use the information to design better products. FoE is fully confident that what they do in Europe will certainly be good enough for those rather stupid drivers in the US. This arrogance can lead to mistakes.

2. When Ford 2000 happened, the responsibility for small cars was moved to Europe. The Escort was near Job 1 on a major change in the U.S., and the Focus was under development in Europe. On the U.S. side, there were Ford engineers working on the Escort (not nearly as many as a U.S. engineered program). Mazda continued to be responsible for the platform.

3. When FoE took over, it was with a very heavy hand. They were extremely derogatory toward Mazda (or anything Asian for that matter despite the success of Asian products in the U.S. market), and viewed the engineers working on the program as "wasted". They made plans to blow away Mazda as soon as possible in part by exaggerated costs savings they said Focus would provide. In truth, they were using the U.S. Focus to help substantiate their program which was in some financial trouble.

4. Most of the engineers on the U.S. side were reassigned.

5. The cars were actually quite common between Europe and the U.S.. Sure there were some powertrain changes and suspension tuning, but they were basically the same. That's not always good. Some of the components and feed stock were high priced as they were based on European spec.

6. FoE didn't pay enough attention to the assembly plants. Those plants had been set up on a Japanese process, and FoE didn't step up to the plate to really understand how to process the Focus in Hermosillo and Wayne and achieve high quality.

 

I'm convinced the next-generation platform efforts will be much more successful. As I mentioned, there has been a lot more work done on standardizing engineering and manufacturing. And I think everyone knows they can't waste engineering time and there is a real understanding that "we're all in this together".

[MKII]

Thanks Austin I am sure it is a very complex topic to try and simplify.

 

Hopefully this time around the end products will be equally good in all markets. In a sense maybe the bad global economic situation will benefit Ford, as all divisions are in the same boat so to speak, plus senior people within the product development organization have in the past worked together on cross-brand, cross-market programs.

[NickF1011]

It's hard to think of a component manufacturer that has multiple plants making the same 'part'.

 

So you think all of the shared components for the U.S.-spec Fiesta and the Euro-spec Fiesta will be built at the same plant? Of course not.

[Critic]

So you think all of the shared components for the U.S.-spec Fiesta and the Euro-spec Fiesta will be built at the same plant? Of course not.

 

Fiesta is to be assembled in Mexico. Shared components being made for Euro, will be shipped from Euro to Mexico. You'd be surprised already what Euro ships for cars/trucks made in the USA already. You already have component part makers in a down slump, who will want to supply for this product, they will not be setting up new plants to supply it. If they can ship from Euro, or make it in an existing plant, that will be done. Going from 16 Mil to 10 Mil, leaves a lot of idle plants everywhere, If they haven't already moved they will. Make it so, Scottie.

[NickF1011]

Fiesta is to be assembled in Mexico. Shared components being made for Euro, will be shipped from Euro to Mexico. You'd be surprised already what Euro ships for cars/trucks made in the USA already. You already have component part makers in a down slump, who will want to supply for this product, they will not be setting up new plants to supply it. If they can ship from Euro, or make it in an existing plant, that will be done. Going from 16 Mil to 10 Mil, leaves a lot of idle plants everywhere, If they haven't already moved they will. Make it so, Scottie.

 

As far as I know, very little of the Fiesta's components will be shipped to Mexico from Europe. Exchange rates would kill its profitablity. To use another example: C1 Focus. Parts for those vehicles are manufactured in several different locations.

Edited March 26, 2009 by NickF1011