Is Ford to blame for Mazada's poor performance?

[FordBuyer]

Strange...my old 86 Escort GT lasted 130K (with me) miles and its replacement a 1992 Escort LX was flawless (I think it had 128K on it) when it was sold to my dad's friends son...who rolled it....dumbass.

 

I saw my old Escort GT in the spring of 1998 with over 200K on it when I worked at an auto parts store at the time...I nearly cried LOL

 

My dad's 1998 Ranger has 136K miles on it now and still runs like a top...

 

I think that if you look back objectively at those times...80's and 90's, you would have to conclude that reliability wise the Mazda based Escorts were on par with best from Toyota and Honda, and the Escorts from 80's never were anecdotal evidence aside. And again, I liked the 19881/2 Escort GT, but it wasn't as reliable as my wife's previous vehicle, the Honda Accord, and believe me she rubbed my face in it as we had to have Escort towed to dealer more than once with fuel injector issues. Escort reliability improved significantly when Ford turned to Mazda for help. If reliability in the 80's Escort were not problematic, Ford would have gone it alone. I can't even count how many auto journalists in the day commented upon the improved reliability of Mazda based Escorts over the previous generation. Sure, 90's cars were better than 80's, but the Escort all of a sudden became bulletproof like Honda and Toyota after turning to Mazda for help. I still love the Mazda based Escort wagons and still prevalent on roads around here, although a bit rusted, but drivetrains still going strong.

[630land]

The only problem with the Gen 2 [91-02] NA Scorts was they kept the SOHC motor too long.

 

And, while some say the early Focuses were 'botched', there are still quite a lot of them running. Resale is better than Escorts and Contours, and many owners swear by them [if they have a Zetec or Duratec]

 

USA was better off getting same proven car and not the ugly exepnsive Euro version in 2005. Sedan looks like a shrunken Ford Five Hundred, which was panned for its boring looks. And, the C1 hatchback are hideous, looking like a clone of the Chevy Citation. The 2008-11 sold well and was needed for the sudden high gas prices.

 

Now, the Europhiles should be happy we get the Euro, but ti needs some more fine tuning for US tastes, like wider seats or lower prices.

[RichardJensen]

Couldn't you even go back further then that with the Escort Program? The only thing those cars shared was the name and the blue oval on them, otherwise they where completely different cars...

I wasn't speaking of failed global vehicles, I was speaking of failed vehicles period. From the first FWD Escort (which wasn't bad), to the Focus twenty years later (which was only horrible in NA), FoE pulled off a string of failures unparalleled in the history of Ford Motor. The Sierra, Scorpio, Escort refresh, Fiesta refresh, and first Mondeo were horrible vehicles for their designated market. Ford had well over 25% of the European market in '80, and had well under 10% of the market 20 years later.

 

The Escort & Fiesta programs were robbed to pay for the Scorpio, which was a Lutz vanity project, the Sierra was a disaster practically from day one, and the Escort and Fiesta were given only minor freshenings at the point when competing products were overhauled.

 

I'll grant you that FoE was going to lose market share in the 80s and 90s as the German, French and Italian manufacturers improved, but Ford made market share conquest easily by putting out two decades worth of inferior product.

 

For all the talk about how Ford NA neglected the passenger car market, it pales in comparison with what happened at FoE.

[630land]

The 2000-04 Focus was worlds better than any previous compact US Ford, [Pinto, Mustang II, Escort] not "horrible" at all. Some purists complained about leaking windows, but the main issue was some recalls, and at least the items were fixed, not just telling drivers to 'f off' as in the good old 70's. Again, many are still running with over 150K miles.

[RichardJensen]

The 2000-04 Focus was worlds better than any

It was recalled 13 times. That ties a record.

 

To say 'some recalls' is like saying that Katrina was a 'bit of rain', that the ocean is 'kind of wet'.

 

In quality terms, the Focus launch was the worst in the 100+ year history of Ford Motor. Worse than the Edsel, worse than everything that came before or since. As compared with its peers (the Civic and Corolla), the Focus launch was absolutely and unquestionably a disaster. To call it otherwise is to engage in a sort of self-delusion that staggers the mind.

[Sherminator98]

It was recalled 13 times. That ties a record.

 

To say 'some recalls' is like saying that Katrina was a 'bit of rain', that the ocean is 'kind of wet'.

 

In quality terms, the Focus launch was the worst in the 100+ year history of Ford Motor. Worse than the Edsel, worse than everything that came before or since. As compared with its peers (the Civic and Corolla), the Focus launch was absolutely and unquestionably a disaster. To call it otherwise is to engage in a sort of self-delusion that staggers the mind.

 

The Escape wasn't much better...rear wheels falling off etc....now look at it :P

[FordBuyer]

The Escape wasn't much better...rear wheels falling off etc....now look at it :P

 

The Aerostar and Tempo first few years were terrible vehicles also, but near end of life Ford improved them enough to make them decent. Trouble is, all those buyers that bought early Aerostars, Tempos, Focuses, and Escapes will probably never come back to Ford brand and don't want to hear about how Ford improved them over time. I think Ford realizes now that it's important to get it right out of box and for most part have over last 8-9 years or so.

[NickF1011]

One other thing to keep in mind with these recalls: most of them were caught relatively early in the product life cycle, so it's not like there were 13 recalls of hundreds of thousands of vehicles each. Some of them only affected a few hundred vehicles.

 

Unfortunate yes, but I would rather have 13 recalls early in a product cycle than 1 recall (cruise control switches anyone?) that end up affecting millions of vehicles.

Edited February 14, 2012 by NickF1011

[FordBuyer]

One other thing to keep in mind with these recalls: most of them were caught relatively early in the product life cycle, so it's not like there were 13 recalls of hundreds of thousands of vehicles each. Some of them only affected a few hundred vehicles.

 

Unfortunate yes, but I would rather have 13 recalls early in a product cycle than 1 recall (cruise control switches anyone?) that end up affecting millions of vehicles.

 

Come on now....let's not try to spin those terrible, nighmarish new vehicle launches like over 10 recalls for 2000 Focus and 7 or more on new Escape into something positive. I can still remember the day after day of Detroit News and Freep putting new Focus problems at top of Page One and asking question of what is wrong with Ford? Those were terrible times for Ford no matter how anyone spins it. Then we got the day after day Freep stories of roof strength on Ford trucks and many people with dented heads coupled with Exploder problems. To this day, many auto buyers out there still call the Explorer an Exploder and the Focus the Fuckus. And is it true U-Haul still won't rent a trailer to Explorer owner. I'm very happy Ford is doing well now, but I haven't forgot the bad old days either and remember them fairly well. I even remember the back wheels coming off early 70's Torinos and gas tanks exploding on Pintos because of poor design. Ford has more than its share of dirt under its rug.

[Boss444]

Perhaps, and more likely, it is the fault of that hideous smiley face styling...

 

This.

[StevenCaylor]

The Mercury Tracer was a badge engineered 323 in the late 1980s

 

Man I forgot how ugly the Mercury Lynx (Escort) was...check out that bumper!

 

 

My mom then Sister had an Escort Wagon of the same year...OMG total POS

 

The model you're showing was the base model with aftermarket bumper guards

 

I had an 83 Lynx RS that I loved. It was technologically advanced (at least for a compact) with multiport fuel injection, 5-speed manual and a performance suspension with the TRX wheel/tire combo.

 

This was the model (mine was black like the Escort GT shown below)

 

Edited February 15, 2012 by StevenCaylor

[bzcat]

I wasn't speaking of failed global vehicles, I was speaking of failed vehicles period. From the first FWD Escort (which wasn't bad), to the Focus twenty years later (which was only horrible in NA), FoE pulled off a string of failures unparalleled in the history of Ford Motor. The Sierra, Scorpio, Escort refresh, Fiesta refresh, and first Mondeo were horrible vehicles for their designated market. Ford had well over 25% of the European market in '80, and had well under 10% of the market 20 years later.

 

The Escort & Fiesta programs were robbed to pay for the Scorpio, which was a Lutz vanity project, the Sierra was a disaster practically from day one, and the Escort and Fiesta were given only minor freshenings at the point when competing products were overhauled.

 

I'll grant you that FoE was going to lose market share in the 80s and 90s as the German, French and Italian manufacturers improved, but Ford made market share conquest easily by putting out two decades worth of inferior product.

 

For all the talk about how Ford NA neglected the passenger car market, it pales in comparison with what happened at FoE.

 

I think a lot of people would disagree with you on Sierra. It was not a disaster at all. The car dominated sales the midsize market in Europe from beginning to end and was one of the best handling and driving car in the segment. Escort was not nearly as good as the Sierra was but it also did well in terms of sales, at least in UK, Ford's largest market.

 

Ford's market share in Europe eroded in the 1990s because it didn't react fast enough to switch to diesel and premium brands. All the non-premium European brands saw massive fall off in sales of larger C/D and D-segment cars so it's unfair to say Mondeo had anything to do with the lost of market share. It more than held its own against rivals like Renault 21, Peugeot 405, VW Passat, Opel Vectra etc. The problem was that unfavorable tax schemes had (1) forced the large car markets into the premium end of the market with premium cars like BMW 3 series and Audi A4 taking over large chunks of market; and (2) forced the non-premium buyers into diesels, which Ford lagged behind.

Edited February 15, 2012 by bzcat

[RichardJensen]

So, according to you, Ford's marketshare falls by 64% over 20 years, but all of their products were fine and top sellers?

[GT-Keith]

Perhaps, and more likely, it is the fault of that hideous smiley face styling...

 

I think Mazdas design is more conservative than Acura's, who's styling has been castigated for years now. And yet, when they launched the "shield" on the TL, the 2009 TL's sales rose 22% versus the 2008 model.

 

However, we did come off of an 18 month recession in summer 2009 which may explain the following month's sales increase.

[Sherminator98]

The model you're showing was the base model with aftermarket bumper guards

 

I had an 83 Lynx RS that I loved. It was technologically advanced (at least for a compact) with multiport fuel injection, 5-speed manual and a performance suspension with the TRX wheel/tire combo.

 

This was the model (mine was black like the Escort GT shown below)

 

 

Here is my old Escort GT I bought off my Dad...an '86 Model.

 

The photos are from the plant when it was being built (Dad worked night shift...followed the VIN on the line)

 

The best part of the story was when he called the dealership and told them the car was coming (was put on a car carrier from the plant to the dealership that was about 50 miles away) and the sales person gave him shit about it...then it showed up a couple hours later...LOL

 

[Biker16]

FoE botched CDW for NA, and didn't get a second bite at the apple. The subsequent botch of the NA Focus launch pretty much ensured that FNA wouldn't be sourcing anything from FoE for the foreseeable future.

 

CDW was a ford 2000 program not simply a FOE program You are oversimplfing the Stituation.

 

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?Dato=20030616&Kategori=SUB&Lopenr=306160819&Ref=AR

 

Reinventing FordThe goals of Ford 2000 <li type="square"> Cut management ranks by 15% <li type="square"> Create 5 vehicle centers to design small cars, large cars, luxury cars, personal trucks, commercial trucks <li type="square"> Merge Ford operations in Europe and North America <li type="square"> Coordinate product plans with Mazda

Ford 2000: A global program that failed

 

Trotman's dream becomes a costly nightmare

David Sedgwick

and Michelle Krebs

Follow Automotive News on and

Automotive News | June 16, 2003 - 12:01 am EST

 

Alex Trotman was nursing a bad head cold. It was 8 a.m. on Oct. 28, 1993, and Ford Motor Co.'s incoming chairman had called 30 top executives to meet at the automaker's Grafton Street office in London.The attendees were dressed casually as they entered the converted mansion in London's tony West End. But Trotman was vexed. He was about to hold the most important meeting of his career, and he had lost his voice.

 

Trotman believed Ford's future was threatened by its own slow-moving bureaucracy, and he was ready for a shake-up.

 

Each of Ford's regional operations had an array of models. But those regions could not share products, factory practices or marketing strategies. It was a costly and inefficient way to do business.

 

Could Ford unify its disparate regional operations? Trotman thought so. He was about to start the company's most ambitious reorganization of the last 50 years.

 

Trotman's Grafton Street meeting and Ford's subsequent upheaval were detailed in a lengthy article in The Detroit News on Sept. 18, 1994. Three months later, Trotman launched Ford 2000, a plan that was supposed to transform Ford into a global operation with unified manufacturing, marketing and product development.

 

He had hoped that Ford 2000 would make the company the world's largest and most profitable automaker. Instead, Ford plunged into a series of difficult reorganizations that continue to this day.

 

Report card

 

None of the executives at the Grafton Street meeting had an inkling of the future. They believed they had gathered in London for a report card on Ford's performance.

 

As the meeting progressed, Trotman scribbled questions for Vice Chairman Lou Ross to read out loud. The executives pondered charts that compared Ford with GM Europe and Toyota Motor Corp. Then they graded Ford's performance in each sector.

 

Ford's factories and assembly plants seemed to be in good shape. But Ford trailed badly in product development. The company could not design vehicles as quickly or cheaply as Toyota.

 

Then Trotman dropped his bombshell: He wanted to know if Ford could merge its North American and European operations.

 

Ford's European executives were stunned. Albert Caspers, chairman of Ford Werke AG in Germany, feared that Europe would become a backwater. Would all of Ford's most ambitious young executives migrate to Dearborn, as Trotman himself did? Would Ford of Europe have the stature to deal with European trade unions?

 

To answer those questions, Trotman asked Ford executive Hank Nickol to head a study team. He gave the team only six weeks - until early December 1993 - to sort things out. "Alex was very impatient," said Dick Ogren, a team member. "He wanted us to do it fast."

 

Three days later, the team occupied a meeting room on the 11th floor of the Glass House, Ford's world headquarters in Dearborn, Mich. The planners soon found themselves mired in controversy.

 

Should Ford consolidate all its engineers under a single production chief? How would Ford run Jaguar and Mazda? What role would be left to Ford of Europe?

 

The European executives were especially nervous. "If Ford were truly global, they knew the company would be led from Dearborn," Nickol told The Detroit News. "It was one of the issues we started with every morning."

 

Despite the arguments, Nickol made progress.

 

Hawks and doves

 

On Dec. 8, 1993, Nickol briefed Ford's top executives. According to The Detroit News, 30 managers gathered in the Glass House's video conference center, while six European managers participated via the video hookup.

 

Nickol made his recommendations: Ford of Europe would design small cars, while Ford's North American operations would develop all other vehicles. Jaguar would become a marketing division, and Mazda would integrate its product development with Ford's.

 

Most executives backed the plan, but a dispute arose over timing. Should Ford reorganize quickly, or should the company adopt a slower, step-by-step approach? The executives divided into hawks and doves.

 

Nickol and most of his team were hawks - they favored a quick reorganization. But the doves warned that a hasty reorganization would cause chaos.

 

Trotman thought things over for a month, then sided with the hawks. The company would begin its reorganization on Jan. 1, 1995. Then Trotman named Robert Transou, vice president of powertrain operations, to oversee the transition. Transou became group vice president of manufacturing in April 1994.

 

In January 1994, Transou's planning team took over the seventh floor of the Glass House.

 

For inspiration, Transou benchmarked Toyota and Nissan. Both automakers used a matrix management system to design vehicles. Transou adopted the concept.

 

To design vehicles, Transou formed five platform teams of engineers, designers and marketers. Each employee would have two bosses: the platform leader, plus the chief of manufacturing, engineering or marketing.

 

Transou also decided to develop global engines, transmissions and platforms.

 

These were big changes, but Transou stirred even more controversy when he recommended the merger of Ford's North American and European operations. It created a global sales operation and a global purchasing unit. Suppliers who wanted to do business with Ford would have to be global, not regional.

 

'Creative chaos'

 

On April 14, 1994, Ford's board of directors approved Transou's reorganization plan. Five days later, Trotman gathered 350 top managers in Toronto - the first such meeting in six years.

 

What they heard was unsettling. Trotman wanted to downsize Ford's bureaucracy, so he planned to "invite" 15 percent of them to retire. He would seek similar cuts from Ford's middle bureaucracy of 2,000 managers.

 

To achieve such reductions, Ford's top brass expected upheaval. Ed Hagenlocker, then president of Ford Automotive Operations, even declared that Ford would be rejuvenated by "creative chaos."

 

And chaos is what Ford got.

 

Ford President Nick Scheele recalls visiting a German engineering center when he was head of Ford of Europe. An escalator was broken, and Scheele wanted to know why it remained unrepaired for 18 months.

 

The engineer accompanying him said that the requisition order for its repairs had gone back and forth between Germany and Dearborn. No one knew what to do. The technical center's boss, who worked in Dearborn, had never visited the building.

 

Early retirement

 

In 1999, Trotman retired a year ahead of schedule. Replacing him was Jacques Nasser, a man who was not known for patience. To stem heavy losses in Europe and South America, Nasser restored decision-making power to Ford's regional organizations.

 

Then he began to tinker with Ford's product development system. Nasser continued to pay public obeisance to Ford 2000, but it was clear that Nasser had altered the original vision.

 

Ford still designs global vehicles and powertrains, and it maintains a global purchasing operation. But sales and marketing must remain local, Scheele says.

 

"What's left today of Ford 2000 is what I thought it should be in the first place," he says. "What we discovered about Ford 2000 was that you can't run a corporation as big and complex as Ford from Dearborn."

 

 

Let's not forget that FoE was a nonstop disaster during the 90s, thanks to the horrible product decisions of the mid-late 80s (thank you Bob Lutz, and thank you also for trying to disguise that disaster by exporting excess production to the US under a gawdawful name).

 

see ford 2000

The Sierra, Scorpio, Escort, Mondeo and Fiesta--basically FoE's entire passenger range--stunk to high heaven during the 90s. So it was not without justification that FNA 1) went with Mazda and 2) strongly encouraged FoE to do so as well, in the early 00s.

 

see Ford 2000

 

It was not evident in 2000-2002 that FoE could launch decent product within its own sphere, let alone stuff that could be sold around the world.

 

The launch of the focus and fiesta in the EU went well it was the North american launch of the Focus that was an issue. Too many late changes to the NA model, by dearborn lead to a ton of recalls and poor Quality. If you still blame FOE for the horrible launches of that era, EXPLAIN the bad launch of the MAZDA BASED ESCAPE??? Quality issues were a North American problem not a FOE problem.

 

Shoot. Part of me wonders if the C1 Focus would've sucked had Volvo & Mazda not been involved, so badly had FoE messed up the previous TWENTY years.

 

the launch of the 2001 Mondeo and 2002 Fiesta, when off without a hitch, why would you expect the launch of the 2004 C1 focus to go badly, in addition the launch of the gen 3 mondeo and the 2007 fiesta went very well. How can you ASSume that the C1 Focus would be botched by FOE??????

 

Richard get your facts Straight, before you post.

[NickF1011]

Come on now....let's not try to spin those terrible, nighmarish new vehicle launches like over 10 recalls for 2000 Focus and 7 or more on new Escape into something positive. I can still remember the day after day of Detroit News and Freep putting new Focus problems at top of Page One and asking question of what is wrong with Ford? Those were terrible times for Ford no matter how anyone spins it. Then we got the day after day Freep stories of roof strength on Ford trucks and many people with dented heads coupled with Exploder problems. To this day, many auto buyers out there still call the Explorer an Exploder and the Focus the Fuckus. And is it true U-Haul still won't rent a trailer to Explorer owner. I'm very happy Ford is doing well now, but I haven't forgot the bad old days either and remember them fairly well. I even remember the back wheels coming off early 70's Torinos and gas tanks exploding on Pintos because of poor design. Ford has more than its share of dirt under its rug.

 

Not really trying to spin it. Just trying to put it into perspective. Which one would a company rather have: A new vehicle launch with a lot of initial recalls and hardly any later or a Firestone debacle?

[RichardJensen]

If you still blame FOE for the horrible launches of that era, EXPLAIN the bad launch of the MAZDA BASED ESCAPE???

Show me where I blamed FoE for the Focus. Read my posts before you respond to them.

 

And, as I said, FoE's track record from 80 - 2000 contains exactly one good product: the 1998 Focus. And that had a terrible launch in NA. Market share had fallen over 60%, and as of the early 00s, the business unit was still barely profitable.

 

Explain to me why Ford would be justified in betting the farm on *their* ability to engineer good products for the entire planet.

 

See, it clearly isn't a case of Ford NA having this chauvinistic "Not Invented Here" mentality, since they freely borrowed Mazda platforms. This is about FoE being subject to a significant amount of deserved skepticism, and some undeserved skepticism (cost should've been engineered out of the NA Focus much earlier).

 

Point being, Ford had every reason to be skeptical regarding FoE's ability to produce vehicles that would be successful in the NA market given the total failure of previous FoE to NA efforts, and the failure of a long line of FoE for Europe efforts. Even if you discount the failure of the Focus (which Ford probably did not do), there was hardly a compelling case for using FoE platforms.

Edited February 15, 2012 by RichardJensen

[bzcat]

So, according to you, Ford's marketshare falls by 64% over 20 years, but all of their products were fine and top sellers?

 

Why do you have to resort to hyperbole? Sierra and Mondeo were indeed top sellers in their segment for many years so what's your beef?

 

Ford's market share fell because they didn't have premium brands and was slow to adopt diesel in smaller cars (e.g. Fiesta and Escort). Not because Sierra and Mondeo were complete disasters as you keep saying. Sierra and Mondeo were good cars for their intended markets. The problem was the market shrunk... by a lot.

 

Ford didn't have complementary products (modern diesels and premium brands) to plug into the growing part of the market. That eventually drove Ford to buy Volvo and Jaguar and link up with PSA for diesel.

[RichardJensen]

Not because Sierra and Mondeo were complete disasters

So a vehicle (Sierra) that went ten years with no significant updates was a success?

 

And are you telling me that VW's increase in market share from 1990 (18%) to 2011 (24%) is due strictly to growth at Audi? VAG has been the prime beneficiary of Ford's past missteps in Europe.

 

http://gerpisa.org/ancien-gerpisa/actes/10/10-3.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-16/europe-november-new-car-registrations-by-market-share-table-.html

 

Ford, primarily by neglecting the Escort and Fiesta, but also by missing the market with the Sierra, Mondeo and especially the Scorpio squandered their market leadership. The Sierra took an immediate hit as compared to the Cortina/Taunus, and was subsequently a victim of neglect (six years into the product lifecycle Ford tweaked the fascia, and that's about it).

Edited February 15, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Edstock]

Ford, primarily by neglecting the Escort and Fiesta, but also by missing the market with the Sierra, Mondeo and especially the Scorpio squandered their market leadership. The Sierra took an immediate hit as compared to the Cortina/Taunus, and was subsequently a victim of neglect (six years into the product lifecycle Ford tweaked the fascia, and that's about it).

How To Run a Car Company . . . into the ground. The engine cupboard was bare across the whole Blue Oval, and Ford buys a 2.5-3 liter V-6 design from Porsche, which may have been one of the smartest moves Ford made, but too late for Scorpio. Meanwhile, in Asia and the rest of the EU, it became 16-valve time, and Ford came late to the party which made ALL 4-cylinder Fords uncompetitive. And it's not like Ford didn't have lots of time to see this coming.

[rkisler]

So a vehicle (Sierra) that went ten years with no significant updates was a success?

 

And are you telling me that VW's increase in market share from 1990 (18%) to 2011 (24%) is due strictly to growth at Audi? VAG has been the prime beneficiary of Ford's past missteps in Europe.

 

http://gerpisa.org/ancien-gerpisa/actes/10/10-3.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-16/europe-november-new-car-registrations-by-market-share-table-.html

 

Ford, primarily by neglecting the Escort and Fiesta, but also by missing the market with the Sierra, Mondeo and especially the Scorpio squandered their market leadership. The Sierra took an immediate hit as compared to the Cortina/Taunus, and was subsequently a victim of neglect (six years into the product lifecycle Ford tweaked the fascia, and that's about it).

 

Not on the subject of Mazda, but a funny story (or maybe not so funny).

 

1. Many here might not know that Hyundai assembled Cortinas in Korea. In fact, the Cortina was the first car that Hyundai ever made.

2. When the Sierra was introduced, it was certainly not universally well received. Sales volumes of the new Sierra were less than the prior year Cortina.

3. To rub salt in the wounds -- due in part to a poorly-written contract on the part of FoE -- Hyundai shipped Cortinas into Europe for a short while until their new model came on board, and of course were able to undercut on price. Their tag line used in advertising was something like "We still have the car you know and love."

[RichardJensen]

Wow.

[Edstock]

2. When the Sierra was introduced, it was certainly not universally well received.

That's understatement.

 

People worked hard to make it look that awkward. Many meetings were held to make it look that awkward. Many plans were made and objectives met to make it look that awkward.

 

Then again all Ford EU product looked awkward as the styling dep't. worked its magic. Besides the Sierra, RJ posted a pic of an EU large Ford sedan from the era that was gagging-grade, a while back in a tribute to the Cologne V-6. Sad to see what a decade of mis-management will do.

 

 

[Biker16]

Show me where I blamed FoE for the Focus. Read my posts before you respond to them.

 

 

OK, you were ot referring to the Focus, ok but what were you referring to.

 

It was not evident in 2000-2002 that FoE could launch decent product within its own sphere, let alone stuff that could be sold around the world.

 

Here is a question , what products did FOE launch between 2000 and 2002? do you knowyou have no proof to support your statement

 

I think you have forgotten FOE has been selling cars all over the World for a very long time, everywhere else except the US.

 

Shoot. Part of me wonders if the C1 Focus would've sucked had Volvo & Mazda not been involved, so badly had FoE messed up the previous TWENTY years.

 

Again completely baseless, bullshit.

 

why was FoE a basket case for those twenty years? Do you know? do you Care?