What's holding Detroit back from future greatness ?

[theoldwizard]

Furthermore, Bosch did a lot of the work with Ford funds, which means it's Ford's technology.

Absolutely incorrect ! A complete falsehood !

 

Ford did not "buy" the technology ! Bosch is guarding it very, very closely. I know this as a fact as I was involved directly with setting of processes and procedures that would allow the 2 companies to work together without sharing specifics. As a matter of fact, Ford had to change many of its engineering work processes to accommodate Bosch.

 

Bosch doesn't like the small percentage that Ford is doing in their "joint venture". Bosch would much prefer that Ford take a total "hands off" attitude and let them do it all.

 

I would say that Ford and Bosch are at the same place Jon and Kate were about 9 months ago ! In definite need of a "marriage consoler" !!

Edited June 26, 2009 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

It is true GM did a lot of the early work on the original transmission design but

I bet you Ford did just as much development getting the thing right and reliable.

Correct.

 

I don't know about the "right and reliable", but Ford wanted some details different and did put a lot into finalizing the design and "making it work". Some of the actual gears may be interchangeable but probably nothing else.

[theoldwizard]

Well it's like this: How much of EcoBoost could Ford do in the first place? They don't do turbos, they don't do direct injectors,...

Given the time and engineering resources (neither of which were available), Ford could have done pretty much everything except the actual injectors, which they have never designed before. (They have done turbos or are you forgetting the old Turbo Coupe Thunderbird and SVO Turbo Mustang !)

[RichardJensen]

Average (at best) in, average out !

Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crud.

 

Give me average engineers and a sound process over superior engineers and a busted process any day.

 

Your 'superior' engineers couldn't keep up with the Japanese because the processes weren't worth a damn.

 

Bosch is guarding it very, very closely.

And given Ford's track record of taking supplier innovations to cheaper competitors, I can't say I blame them.

 

Bottom line: If Ford is doing anything other than buying Bosch's parts off the shelf, if Ford is paying ANY development money to Bosch without receiving EXCLUSIVE rights to what that money buys--whether it's short term or long, everyone in the OGC deserves to be fired.

 

(They have done turbos or are you forgetting the old Turbo Coupe Thunderbird and SVO Turbo Mustang !)

If ANY practical knowledge of turbos from 20 years ago is relevant, that knowledge would be in the employ of Visteon.

[jpd80]

Bosch doesn't like the small percentage that Ford is doing in their "joint venture". Bosch would much prefer that Ford take a total "hands off" attitude and let them do it all.

 

I would say that Ford and Bosch are at the same place Jon and Kate were about 9 months ago ! In definite need of a "marriage consoler" !!

The elephant in the room is FoA's turbo I-6, it's a cheap engine,with PFI and a single turbo putting

out torque and horsepower figures that are arguably better suited to F Truck than the EB V6.

Now that the engine has been updated for EURO 4/5/6, it's not that far from US Tier II emissions...

 

with the evolutionary efforts on the Falcon I-6 turning it into a DOHC VCT engine,

one can only wonder what might have been for 302 small block and the 351W.

[theoldwizard]

Bottom line: If Ford is doing anything other than buying Bosch's parts off the shelf, if Ford is paying ANY development money to Bosch without receiving EXCLUSIVE rights to what that money buys--whether it's short term or long, everyone in the OGC deserves to be fired.

Gee, took you long enough to understand that Ford is only buying off the shelf parts ! Given the current and projected volume for the next couple of years, Ford is doing the right thing, for the short term !

 

Any additional money changing hands is to pay for added/late changes or additional intermediate deliveries not in the original scope of work (and from what I hear Bosch is really raking in the money on those 2 !)

 

If ANY practical knowledge of turbos from 20 years ago is relevant, that knowledge would be in the employ of Visteon.

0 for 2 !

 

When Ford spun off Visteon, Visteon got copies of all Intellectual Properties that they had been previously involved in (yes, I was involved in the transfer).

 

Most of the engineering talent, (powertrain controls, software engineers, calibration engineers, mechanical engineers) returned back to Ford. Visteon kept most of the hardware (module design) engineers. Yes, I was there again and made the transfer back to Ford.

[theoldwizard]

The elephant in the room is FoA's turbo I-6, it's a cheap engine,with PFI and a single turbo putting

out torque and horsepower figures that are arguably better suited to F Truck than the EB V6.

Now that the engine has been updated for EURO 4/5/6, it's not that far from US Tier II emissions...

I hate to break the news to you, but most of the worked was outsourced also.

 

FoA shutdown their powertrain controls development area several years ago. The just right requirements documents and then give it to the lowest bidder.

 

Sigh. Yes, I was there as Ford NA (Dearborn) was one of the bidders !

[mackinaw]

I wonder if we've entered a new era of engineering stuff, one that relies more on 3rd party suppliers and less on employed-by-a-particular company personnel. A paradigm shift if you want to use that fancy word. Maybe the old way of doing things is gone for good. Or maybe Ford, and other companies, will hire more engineers once they return to profitability. I can tell you that it my line of work (natural resource management), the old way of "we do everything" is a relic of the past. Between a 1/3rd and 1/2 of what we do is now done by contractors.

[rkisler]

A few comments; sorry if this long:

 

Engineering Talent - Then

• I have been involved in recruiting for Ford PD, but my experience is becoming more dated day-by-day
  
• When Ford was still hiring, we were able to get very good candidates from very good schools. Most of the new engineering hires had at least a BS from a top-tier school, and many had advanced degrees or relevant work experience. New hires for Product Planning and Program Management had top-tier engineering BS plus 3-5 years experience and an MBA from a top tier school. Although Ford had competition, our capture rate was pretty good.
  
• Ford had its best luck long term with engineers from good schools in the midwest and east. Although Ford would have liked to get more West Coast engineers from, say, Berkeley or Stanford, climate, distance, family, and work/life balance were big obstacles.
  
• Some of the East Coast top tier schools (MIT, Cornell) were not as well represented. A lot of these engineers (at the time at least) went on to be financial quants on Wall Street and helped engineer the present fiasco we are now in. Or they went straight to consulting for big bucks. (BTW, I have NEVER understood how an undergrad engineer is worth anything whatsoever as a consultant).
  
• But Ford landed good engineers from many backgrounds, and the school did not ultimately define how good they were, or their ability to lead.
  
• As far as the MBA's the experience was similar. East and West coasts less successful (except for Dartmouth). A lot of East and West Coasters want a fancy corner office and don't want to get their fingers dirty or understand the gory details on all the bits of a car.
  

 

Present Situation

• PD is facing necessary cutbacks, and I don't think the situation has reached equilibrium yet.
  
• New tools are being implemented to reduce workload, but the major reductions are coming from reduced platforms. Some programs will be able to be passed like batons across the ocean (the recent switch with the C and CD programs is a good example). Other programs (like F150 and D3) will remain as a NA responsibility.
  
• As a side note, FoA is always under duress as I'm sure jpd can attest. The problem is not capability, but the workload harmonic.
  
• Ford has lost a lot. 1. There is an exodus of older PD employees with a huge knowledge base and the ability to train younger engineers. 2. Many of the recently-hired engineers headed for the doors when they saw Ford heading south, and there were still opportunities in other companies. 3. I'm guessing if you looked at the numbers, there would be generational issues within Ford's PD staffing and potential problems ahead on those people leaving without experienced engineers to take their place.
  
• In a situation that makes you want to beat your head against the wall, at the same time the D3 were shedding engineering resources, Hyundai/Kia ($100 million, 1,000 employees) and Toyota ($187 million, 1,200 employees) were expanding their NA technical centers near Ann Arbor. All they had to do was put a net out to catch the good ones falling from the sky.
  

 

The Future -- Good and Bad

• Ford will have to begin hiring at some point to replace older workers and to fill critical needs (like EE's).
  
• Ford's wages are now "average", there is no pension program nor lifetime medical benefits. The location isn't that appealing to young engineers, and the reputation of the D3 is in the dumpster. However,
  
• Good engineering grads are starting to stack up like cordwood due to the poor economy.
  
• There are still engineers that actually want to design things and work for an American company that goes from concept to finished product. And it's even better that those products can be seen and recognized by the public. There is nothing quite like having someone complement a Ford product and to be able to explain your role in putting that concept on the road.
  
• There is still something magical about cars, and there are still engineers who would love the chance to work on them -- a fair amount of the hires had worked on Formula SAE or solar car events.
  
• So, if Ford can keep their head above water, can continue to produce good products, and can continue to improve its reputation, then I believe Ford would be able to attract good talent when the hiring freeze ends.
  

[fordmantpw]

Let's say Ford had two options:

 

1) Design products on their own and get them to market in five years. This may be too late as the company would have missed the boat on the fuel economy improvements and the company goes in the dumps. There is no future.

2) Buy some parts off the shelf and get to market in two years. This is maybe not as cost effective, but keeps the company afloat and enables them to get back to option 1 of designed it on their own in the future.

 

Which should they choose? I think option 2 looks pretty good right now.

[Big_Mack]

A few comments; sorry if this long:

 

Engineering Talent - Then

• I have been involved in recruiting for Ford PD, but my experience is becoming more dated day-by-day
  
• When Ford was still hiring, we were able to get very good candidates from very good schools. Most of the new engineering hires had at least a BS from a top-tier school, and many had advanced degrees or relevant work experience. New hires for Product Planning and Program Management had top-tier engineering BS plus 3-5 years experience and an MBA from a top tier school. Although Ford had competition, our capture rate was pretty good.
  
• Ford had its best luck long term with engineers from good schools in the midwest and east. Although Ford would have liked to get more West Coast engineers from, say, Berkeley or Stanford, climate, distance, family, and work/life balance were big obstacles.
  
• Some of the East Coast top tier schools (MIT, Cornell) were not as well represented. A lot of these engineers (at the time at least) went on to be financial quants on Wall Street and helped engineer the present fiasco we are now in. Or they went straight to consulting for big bucks. (BTW, I have NEVER understood how an undergrad engineer is worth anything whatsoever as a consultant).
  
• But Ford landed good engineers from many backgrounds, and the school did not ultimately define how good they were, or their ability to lead.
  
• As far as the MBA's the experience was similar. East and West coasts less successful (except for Dartmouth). A lot of East and West Coasters want a fancy corner office and don't want to get their fingers dirty or understand the gory details on all the bits of a car.
  

 

Present Situation

• PD is facing necessary cutbacks, and I don't think the situation has reached equilibrium yet.
  
• New tools are being implemented to reduce workload, but the major reductions are coming from reduced platforms. Some programs will be able to be passed like batons across the ocean (the recent switch with the C and CD programs is a good example). Other programs (like F150 and D3) will remain as a NA responsibility.
  
• As a side note, FoA is always under duress as I'm sure jpd can attest. The problem is not capability, but the workload harmonic.
  
• Ford has lost a lot. 1. There is an exodus of older PD employees with a huge knowledge base and the ability to train younger engineers. 2. Many of the recently-hired engineers headed for the doors when they saw Ford heading south, and there were still opportunities in other companies. 3. I'm guessing if you looked at the numbers, there would be generational issues within Ford's PD staffing and potential problems ahead on those people leaving without experienced engineers to take their place.
  
• In a situation that makes you want to beat your head against the wall, at the same time the D3 were shedding engineering resources, Hyundai/Kia ($100 million, 1,000 employees) and Toyota ($187 million, 1,200 employees) were expanding their NA technical centers near Ann Arbor. All they had to do was put a net out to catch the good ones falling from the sky.
  

 

The Future -- Good and Bad

• Ford will have to begin hiring at some point to replace older workers and to fill critical needs (like EE's).
  
• Ford's wages are now "average", there is no pension program nor lifetime medical benefits. The location isn't that appealing to young engineers, and the reputation of the D3 is in the dumpster. However,
  
• Good engineering grads are starting to stack up like cordwood due to the poor economy.
  
• There are still engineers that actually want to design things and work for an American company that goes from concept to finished product. And it's even better that those products can be seen and recognized by the public. There is nothing quite like having someone complement a Ford product and to be able to explain your role in putting that concept on the road.
  
• There is still something magical about cars, and there are still engineers who would love the chance to work on them -- a fair amount of the hires had worked on Formula SAE or solar car events.
  
• So, if Ford can keep their head above water, can continue to produce good products, and can continue to improve its reputation, then I believe Ford would be able to attract good talent when the hiring freeze ends.
  

 

Austin,

 

How the heck do I get a shot at working for Ford?!?!

 

Ever since I was about 6 years old I started designing cars and putting Ford badges on them. Eventually I evolved to the engineering side, and I am currently a mechanical engineering major at West Virginia University hoping to be at FoMoCo someday!

 

I have a 3.2GPA, i'm involved with the SAE Baja competition, and also associated partly with the new "EcoCar" competition.

 

I have all of my experience in the auto field. I started off doing work with a small manufacturing company building diesel locomotive engine components. Everything from time process study all the way to production fixture design.

 

I am currently continuing a co-op with Volvo Powertrain North America, aka. Mack Trucks Inc. around here. Last year I did 8 months with the Project team, which included coordinating small build projects, and then even developing ways of aftertreatment system testing. This year I am working with the Performance Group for our 11L and 13L engines. I do everything from running ATI vision on the engines in the cells, to analyzing the data afterwards...

 

How do I get into Ford?!? I've tried for 2 years now, and have gotten nowhere. I had a contact in the SVT group that was going to try and help me,but he got laid off... My only other option in that respect is contacting Brian Wolfe through a co-worker who was very close to him while he was at Ford...

 

Do you have any advice? Trust me, I'm not your average "green" engineering student...I've been around the block a bit when it comes to cars.

[RichardJensen]

Gee, took you long enough to understand that Ford is only buying off the shelf parts ! Given the current and projected volume for the next couple of years, Ford is doing the right thing, for the short term !

 

Any additional money changing hands is to pay for added/late changes or additional intermediate deliveries not in the original scope of work (and from what I hear Bosch is really raking in the money on those 2 !)

If all Ford's doing is buying off the shelf components, I have no way of fathoming what the big deal is. They aren't being ripped off for something they won't own, and if anything, buying all this stuff from a single supplier that isn't at risk of going belly-up is better than buying it from a half dozen questionable suppliers and having to baby-sit all of them.

Most of the engineering talent, (powertrain controls, software engineers, calibration engineers, mechanical engineers) returned back to Ford. Visteon kept most of the hardware (module design) engineers. Yes, I was there again and made the transfer back to Ford.

So, then, we're back to whether experience with turbos from 20 years ago is still relevant. My guess: no.

[theoldwizard]

If all Ford's doing is buying off the shelf components, I have no way of fathoming what the big deal is. They aren't being ripped off for something they won't own,...

IMHO (and many of engineers I know still working at Ford), Ford is being gouged by exorbitant charge for changes and additional deliveries not in the original statement of work. These changes were always considered just "part of the job". You can blame Ford management/purchasing for these if you would like. It has driven some parts of engineering deep into the red.

 

... and if anything, buying all this stuff from a single supplier that isn't at risk of going belly-up is better than buying it from a half dozen questionable suppliers and having to baby-sit all of them.

Valid point. However with a sole source you have no opportunity to drive costs down as volume ramps up. In other words, expect EcoBoost to always be a premium engine !

 

The real point I was trying make, that Austin did, is the engineering ranks are thin and getting thinner, limiting innovative idea in the future. Hopefully a couple of his point are correct and will save Ford and the other Detroit based automaker/suppliers:

• Good engineering grads are starting to stack up like cordwood due to the poor economy.
  
• There are still engineers that actually want to design things and work for an American company that goes from concept to finished product. And it's even better that those products can be seen and recognized by the public. There is nothing quite like having someone complement a Ford product and to be able to explain your role in putting that concept on the road.
  
• There is still something magical about cars, and there are still engineers who would love the chance to work on them -- a fair amount of the hires had worked on Formula SAE or solar car events.
  

Edited June 26, 2009 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

Austin,

 

Thanks for an excellent post ! It is always good to hear from someone with first hand knowledge, even if it is a couple of years old. I want to highlight a couple of your comments

 

Engineering Talent - Then

• Ford had its best luck long term with engineers from good schools in the midwest and east. Although Ford would have liked to get more West Coast engineers from, say, Berkeley or Stanford, climate, distance, family, and work/life balance were big obstacles.
  
• Some of the East Coast top tier schools (MIT, Cornell) were not as well represented....
  

Many of the older folks noted the lack of East Coats and West Cost Engineering talent and were concerned.

Present Situation

• PD is facing necessary cutbacks, and I don't think the situation has reached equilibrium yet.
  
• New tools are being implemented to reduce workload, ...
  

The first is sad to hear. The second, I would love to hear more about. There were certainly "opportunities", but no one was willing to step up to the plate and take the bull by the horns.

 

• Ford has lost a lot. 1. There is an exodus of older PD employees with a huge knowledge base and the ability to train younger engineers. 2. Many of the recently-hired engineers headed for the doors when they saw Ford heading south, and there were still opportunities in other companies. 3. I'm guessing if you looked at the numbers, there would be generational issues within Ford's PD staffing and potential problems ahead on those people leaving without experienced engineers to take their place.
  

You absolutely nailed it right there !

 

One other issue that is not wide spread in the company is lack of engineering management who actually understand the processes and procedures being used by their own engineers (or by engineers doing similar work outside of Ford). This is likely a niche problem (powertrain controls), but one that has been going on for several years and does not appear to be getting any better.

Edited June 26, 2009 by theoldwizard

[jpd80]

I hate to break the news to you, but most of the worked was outsourced also.

 

FoA shutdown their powertrain controls development area several years ago. The just right requirements documents and then give it to the lowest bidder.

 

Sigh. Yes, I was there as Ford NA (Dearborn) was one of the bidders !

Sigh, you are so out of date.

You keep peddling the Notion that there is no one at FoA but they now have their own Emissions lab

and cold weather testing lab that are being outsourced to other manufacturers and Ford divisions.

We now have our own transmission technician who came fro Europe he rewrote the 5R55 calibrations

and made it respectable and did the new version on the ZF 6 speed calibrations.

Euro 4, 5 &6 work was all done in real time at the new ACART center in Geelong to Ford global standards.

 

I wish you wouldn't keep spreading out of date impressions, much has changed since 2006 and T6

 

Ford Australia opens $20 million Advanced Centre for Automotive Research and Testing in Geelong

 

The centre has cost $19.7 million, of which the state government contributed $6.7 million through its Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) program.

 

Importantly for Ford, the new facility has been standardised in accordance with Ford's global testing requirements. The company's testing facilities in Australia attain an equivalent standard for testing with Ford's two other global testing facilities in Belgium and Detroit.

 

Ford Australia is already fielding commercial enquiries from other car companies (even direct competitors) concerning the use of ACART, which was established from the start with the intention of supporting the whole automotive industry in Australia, not just Ford.

 

Furthermore, Ford Australia can offer the facility to its international divisions for environmental testing out of season or if other facilities are swamped with work. In the example of Ford Europe's facility being tied up with development of one model, another can be shipped to Australia for testing here -- and therein lies the importance of ACART meeting Ford's global testing standards.

 

Ford Australia had an Explorer on hand to illustrate how the various testing facilities are standardised. Testing of the Explorer must reproduce the same results in each of the three test centres for all three to be considered 'standardised'.

 

So you see with FoA possibly doing more work for Europe, that frees FoE to take more work from FNA.

This can only spell more bad news for people in Detroit, no wonder they think the world is ending...

Edited June 27, 2009 by jpd80

[blksn8k2]

Partially correct. Ford did about 25-33% of the software. They were responsible for all wiring, fuel and air plumbing as well as exhaust. Last word was powertrain management saying that it took a lot more work (on Ford's part) to get the V6 EcoBoost out the door then they had planned !

 

I don't think Ford did all the engineering on the intake plumbing. A friend of mine who works for Steere Ent did at least some of the design work on the SHO plumbing.

[RichardJensen]

Ford is being gouged by exorbitant charge for changes and additional deliveries not in the original statement of work. These changes were always considered just "part of the job".

As one who has been on the receiving end of 'feature creep' due to a poorly written contract (my fault), if Ford got away with that kind of stuff in the past and they're getting 'burned' now because of it.... sorry, put it down as a cost of lessons learned

Valid point. However with a sole source you have no opportunity to drive costs down as volume ramps up. In other words, expect EcoBoost to always be a premium engine !

I think that, at least, is what Ford expects.

[jpd80]

Ecoboost remain an exclusive engine?

Depending on the application, maybe Ecoboost can be both high volume or exclusive.

High volume in economy versions and exclusive when used as a power adder.

 

 

Ford's own website says:

By 2013, Ford will have more than half a million EcoBoost-powered vehicles on the road annually in North America.

Edited June 27, 2009 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Ecoboost remain an exclusive engine?

Depending on the application, maybe Ecoboost can be both high volume or exclusive.

High volume in economy versions and exclusive when used as a power adder.

Regardless of the volume or use, the consumer is going to pay a premium price for all of the parts that can NOT be competitively bid because they contain intellectual property owned by the supplier (PCM and software, direct injectors, etc).

[theoldwizard]

Let's say Ford had two options:

 

1) Design products on their own and get them to market in five years. This may be too late as the company would have missed the boat on the fuel economy improvements and the company goes in the dumps. There is no future.

2) Buy some parts off the shelf and get to market in two years. This is maybe not as cost effective, but keeps the company afloat and enables them to get back to option 1 of designed it on their own in the future.

 

Which should they choose? I think option 2 looks pretty good right now.

I have to agree with you, short term. Once you have "drunk the Kool Aid" it is very hard to go back an innovate.

 

It still begs the question, what does it mean for the company long term ?

 

"Hitching your wagon" to a supplier is pretty dicey these days as several have already filed for bankruptcy and more will.

 

FYI, EcoBoost (or Gas Turbo Direct Injection, GTDI, as it is called internally) took over 3 years from when I first heard of it (which was obviously not Day #1 as I had nothing to do with Product Planning) until it went in production.

[theoldwizard]

Sigh, you are so out of date.

You keep peddling the Notion that there is no one at FoA but they now have their own Emissions lab

and cold weather testing lab that are being outsourced to other manufacturers and Ford divisions.

Testing is one thing. Engineers who are capable of interpreting those test results and making design decision on future products are another.

 

We now have our own transmission technician who came fro Europe he rewrote the 5R55 calibrations

and made it respectable and did the new version on the ZF 6 speed calibrations.

One man, working beyond his formal training level, does not make an a global engineering group.

 

I came across several of these talented individuals from FoA in my day. Most went to other companies because they did not have the credentials to get promoted.

[Edstock]

The nature of engineering progress has changed as technology has developed. Thus, the old-time massive engineering departments have changed.

 

The automobile is an amalgam of many different sciences and their expression in hardware through engineering. The pressure to produce more fuel efficiency has done more to abolish the NIH mind-set, because solutions are varied, and one engine engineering establishment cannot cover all the bases of technological development. Thus we get Ford's acquisition of alcohol-injection technology, not invented by Ford.

 

The next big challenge is to get the weight out of the vehicle. Unitized or BOF, the technology is "mature", and there's only so much that can be gained by endless re-working of designs on super-computers.

 

New materials are needed, and to expect that they will be developed by in-house engineering teams is not realistic. New materials, like amorphous-phase metals, are creations from university research from around the world. Some of this is funded by companies like Caterpillar and Ford and John Deere, some from government like DARPA or NIST or the CRC in Canada.

 

With computer nets, companies like Ford and Caterpillar can comb the world in their search for solutions. RIP NIH.

[F250]

Well it's like this: How much of EcoBoost could Ford do in the first place? They don't do turbos, they don't do direct injectors, so what could they have done aside from coordination of/supervision of one or more suppliers?

 

Furthermore, Bosch did a lot of the work with Ford funds, which means it's Ford's technology.

 

Not unlike the ControlTrac & Intelligent AWD systems that BW developed, pitched to Ford, and which are Ford exclusive.

 

Yes,exactly. This type of business plan has worked well in the past. Ford didn't do diesels or turbos etc so the answer was to use an outside company (Navistar) to develop them. Worked well didn't it. No, we can't have Ford Motor Company engineering important systems in-house.

[jpd80]

Yes,exactly. This type of business plan has worked well in the past. Ford didn't do diesels or turbos etc so the answer was to use an outside company (Navistar) to develop them. Worked well didn't it. No, we can't have Ford Motor Company engineering important systems in-house.

On the other side of the coin, the relationship with PSA and diesel engines has worked well.

The important thing with outsourcing is to go in eyes open, write your contracts accordingly

and make suppliers stick to them.

 

I see theoldwizard makes reference to Bosch making a fortune on contracts by charging for extras.

In the past, I'm sure Ford would have screwed their internal staff for the extra work at no extra pay.

It does Ford good to see the real cost of jobs, maybe their own staff don't look so expensive any more...

[theoldwizard]

On the other side of the coin, the relationship with PSA and diesel engines has worked well.

The important thing with outsourcing is to go in eyes open, write your contracts accordingly

and make suppliers stick to them.

Just so that everyone is clear, PSA is not a supplier but a member of the joint venture that designed the highly successful Ford EU diesel engines.

 

I see theoldwizard makes reference to Bosch making a fortune on contracts by charging for extras.

In the past, I'm sure Ford would have screwed their internal staff for the extra work at no extra pay.

It does Ford good to see the real cost of jobs, maybe their own staff don't look so expensive any more...

Ahhhhh .... ENLIGHTENMENT !