Fusion/MKZ at Flat Rock

[akirby]

The Fusion SHO engine bay, I hope

 

ST or SVT, not SHO.

[atomcat68]

ST or SVT, not SHO.

 

They could call it George for all I care. I hope they just build it.

[akirby]

They could call it George for all I care. I hope they just build it.

 

[Biker16]

Why would the Transit Connect go to OAC? Why wouldn't it be plus volume at the Escape plant, now that the Kuga export has been scotched?

 

because the volume of the escape, and Lincoln CUV will likely max LAP out. in addition to that the complexity of the TC with all of it's options roof heights, wheelbases, and the packages would slow the entire plant down. reducing production speed,

 

MY theory about the spanish plant is that they will build the TC on it's own production line, the old Fiesta line, and the Kuga would would either be mixed in with the C-Max 5 and C-max 7 or the C-max 7 would be mixed in with the TC.

 

At OAC you have 2 separate Assembly plants Oakville Truck and Oakville assembly that were combined into a bastard plant where they tried to merge the best assets of each plant into one production system. form what I hear it works but it is not pretty.

 

I could see them installing a new line at the idled truck plant and adding a second body shop, moving production there while the current Car plant is Retooled to make another product, in the process rationalizing the production system too, including possibly adding on site stamping. either way you can see the needs of a complex build product like the TC and the needs of a 3 row CUV are similar, remember the speed of the line is set by it's most complex product.

 

in the future I would like to See ford invest in Shorter trim lines, where the you can better optimize production of disimlar models. much like the fiesta plant in germany which has one body shop, one paint shop and one Chassis line, but 2 Trim lines. at the time this allowed for the more flexibility between Fiesta and Fusion production. This would reduce the burden of low volume TC or C-max7 production on the plant.

[RichardJensen]

Isn't "It works but is not pretty" a description of just about every factory on the face of the planet?

 

I'm not sure that Ford's NA volume justifies shorter trim lines.

 

My understanding of Ontario Truck is that it was a very small plant that was built pretty much to satisfy Canadian domestic-origin laws, and that there's not much that can be done with it.

 

Further, KTP or OHAP would seem to be better candidates for TC volume if that volume is going to be varied and in need of a slow moving line. OAC volume won't equal LAP, but it's not going to be far behind it, and I don't see Ford opening up a second line at OAC for the TC.

 

If NA is getting a limited TC range, than it should be able to slot into LAP at say a 30k annual rate on 3 shifts, with another ~300k Escape/MKG.

Edited January 11, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Biker16]

what about the nano v6, where does that fit in?

 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2011/adv_combustion/ace065_rinkevich_2011_o.pdf

[Hugh]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2011/adv_combustion/ace065_rinkevich_2011_o.pdf

Very informative, thank you.

[Kris Kolman]

Is the TC really that varied... You've got two wheelbases, but each has its own unique roof height (SWB is short and the LWB is high). That doesn't seem that vared considering the powertrains are really limited in selection. Its basically a hatchback and sedan in terms of variability... Am I missing something here?

[Mark B. Morrow]

 

 

And I will hug him and squeeze him and pet him...

[Biker16]

Is the TC really that varied... You've got two wheelbases, but each has its own unique roof height (SWB is short and the LWB is high). That doesn't seem that varied considering the power-trains are really limited in selection. Its basically a hatchback and sedan in terms of variability... Am I missing something here?

 

on the trim line, The varied simplicity and complexity of the model.

 

My novice mind has issues with the differnt build characteristics of the Van it can be more complex to build than the focus and more simple to build than the focus. available in 1 2 or even 3 rows of seats, with interior paneling without interior paneling, carpet, no carpet. I feel you would be adding alot of complexity for such a medium volume model.

[Biker16]

I'm not sure that Ford's NA volume justifies shorter trim lines.

 

How come Nissan can do it at it's 2 plants in North America.

 

in fact the Nissan plant in Smyrna, has 5 trims lines.

 

When honda built it's alabama plant for the Oddessy. it was only designed to make 150,000 vans on 2 shifts. they doubled production there by building a 2nd line that was an exact mirror of the first. in essence there line was half the length of the Ford line at DTP, to they increased capasity by adding a line of production, because the line was shorter it was less expensive to build and quicker to bring online.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=honda+lincoln+al&fb=1&gl=us&hq=honda&hnear=0x888bd0fea1b48a63:0x44336cfdcfc97118,Lincoln,+AL&cid=0,0,3928040458021365007&ei=VH8PT92mJoryggeIkOX1Aw&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&ved=0CBIQ_BI

 

Toyota builds the highlander, sienna and Sequoia, in Indiana

 

It does os on 2 lines, sienna on one line and the highlander and sequoia on the other. could you imagine the complexity of building all 3 on one line?

 

the best analogy is can think of is a bucket brigade.

 

if you want to double the amount of water moved you can

A) Double speed the water goes from from person to person faster

B) maintin the speed the water moves from person to person, but use two lines of people instead of one.

 

which method will spill the most water?

 

when trying to maintain the Quality of the good, sometimes speed is not better.

 

 

My understanding of Ontario Truck is that it was a very small plant that was built pretty much to satisfy Canadian domestic-origin laws, and that there's not much that can be done with it.

 

It produced 112,000 F-150s in it last year of production, on one shift.

 

It would be an option to Squeeze more niche production on that site.

 

 

Further, KTP or OHAP would seem to be better candidates for TC volume if that volume is going to be varied and in need of a slow moving line. OAC volume won't equal LAP, but it's not going to be far behind it, and I don't see Ford opening up a second line at OAC for the TC.

 

OHAP and KTP are Body on frame plants, you don't want the TC there.

 

the line on the F series side does not move slow at all. the plant has 2 lines, runs on 3 shifts and makes ~300,000 per year. AFAIK the 2nd line is a short line for the Expy and Navi.

 

 

If NA is getting a limited TC range, than it should be able to slot into LAP at say a 30k annual rate on 3 shifts, with another ~300k Escape/MKG.

 

You could do it but you would risk affect the volume potential of the plant. little things like going from a lift gate to french doors. or Swing doors to sliding doors, may mean changes to the line, or the addition of another sub-line to build those doors. when a TC runs down the line it has it's own station because it take much longer to install sliders than Swingers, and procedure for installing french doors is different than installing a liftgate. keep in mind only one in every 10 cars on the line will use this tooling 30k out of 300k, in the mean time the worker assigned to do this tasks will either have to change jobs or be left idle, either way while it may take 3 times as long to install sliders on the Van the rest of the line must wait for that to be done, thus reducing the overall production of the plant. when

 

If you have to volume to absorb those costs like they do in Europe, it makes sense. This is the dilemma IMO We have medium volume product that cannot Vary too much from the existing products because they effect the productivity of the entire plant. If the Flex for example had sliding doors it would not be in production. for every Flex or MKT made they make 4.68 Edges of MKXs this ratio is sustainable with the difference between the Two platforms. 1 in 10 is not. at least in trim with large changes in assembly.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

How come Nissan can do it at it's 2 plants in North America.

I wasn't saying that Ford had too little volume to justify shorter lines. I was saying that they have too much.

 

Also, I don't see Ford investing hundreds of millions in addition to tooling costs to support local assembly of the Transit Connect. That doesn't make any sense. You look at total revenue you can expect to generate from that vehicle, and where does it get you?

 

Say you're looking at $500M to upgrade OTP to build 50k Transit Connects per year (I don't think it's wise to bank on more than that).

 

$500M/(50k*10 years), and where are you? $1000 per vehicle in amortization (not counting allowances for opportunity cost). On a $25k vehicle.

 

That's why I can't see Ford adding capacity anywhere for the TC.

 

Further, I don't understand why, say OHAP, would be a poor match for the TC--or the Transit side of KCAP. In fact, the TC might slot well at KCAP. AFAIK, BOF vs. unitized construction isn't a major issue on trim line; it's mainly an issue going through the body & chassis.