Ford/Lincoln Hit Bottom In Reliability Survey

[JasonM]

I still don't fully grasp the depth of the quality issues at Ford

 

 

Severe quality (warranty) issues will show up in a companies earnings, keep a close eye on Ford's next earnings report, especially North American results.

[Bob Rosadini]

 

I'm not sure how many more years Ford can tolerate this before these stats start doing real and lasting damage to the company's image. In an industry where it's now very hard to standout in a market that has grown incredibly homogeneous, it's very easy to standout when you fail so it's important not to fail in the rush to catch-up.

You are right-but by the majority of the responses here there seems to be more concern about the CR's methodology. I say if ....."it walks like a duck, etc" Like I said, my 2010 SHO hasn't been back to the dealer, HOWEVER, Fields gets all kinds of bouquets because of skillful cost cutting.

 

Has it been done correctly? That remains to be seen. The easiest thing in the world is to cut costs. And as we have seen time and time again, all to often the "cost cutters" are heroes in the short term-which of course seems to be everyone's focus today. Until the pigeons come home to roost.

 

Spoken as a stockholder.

[jpd80]

Severe quality (warranty) issues will show up in a companies earnings, keep a close eye on Ford's next earnings report, especially North American results.

These are not warranty issues, this is all about customers complaining about MFT being hard to use.

 

And as for Ford NA profitability, it couldn't be better:

 

 

But the company thrived on its North American financial results.

The company's North American operations turned profits of $2.3 billion during the third quarter, the third consecutive quarter the region posted profits above $2 billion.

Ford also upped its estimates for the 2012 industry auto sales volume to 14.7 million units, including medium and heavy trucks.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121030/AUTO0102/210300367#ixzz2An8n1Kwz

[Bob Rosadini]

And as for Ford NA profitability, it couldn't be better:

 

thanks- you made my point-yes profits are great-TODAY. They usually are when you've cut a lot of costs out of the picture.

[jpd80]

And as for Ford NA profitability, it couldn't be better:

 

thanks- you made my point-yes profits are great-TODAY. They usually are when you've cut a lot of costs out of the picture.

And most importantly build products that people want to buy......

 

Ford also upped its estimates for the 2012 industry auto sales volume to 14.7 million units, including medium and heavy trucks.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitne...7#ixzz2AnGvTsxP

 

Edited October 30, 2012 by jpd80

[akirby]

The problems I've noticed recently:

 

MFT - mostly fixed with the latest update but not 100% - ongoing improvement required. There were a lot of bad APIMs out there also in addition to the software. But these can all be fixed and should not be a long term problem.

 

Transmission issues with 6F35 - shift flare. Not fatal, just irritating. Fixed somewhat with new software.

 

Throttle body failures - engineering/manufacturing flaw. seems to be fixed with new parts

 

Body/assembly issues - misaligned escape hatches (hatches on escapes, not actual escape hatches ), trunks, doors. Wind noise, roof leaks.

 

Powershift complaints - mostly resolved with latest software, still feels different than a regular auto which will cause some complaints but no actual defects

 

Bad parts - 1.6L and 2.0L engine parts, bad APIMs for MFT, throttle bodies, etc.

 

 

 

The engineering issues seem to be related to new products (6F tranny, electronically controlled throttle bodies, powershift tranny) so I would expect those to be resolved and not reoccur. Hopefully there will be fewer new products and more improvements to existing products which should allow more focus on quality. I think trying to put out ecoboost engines new trannies all at the same time on a super aggressive schedule was just too aggressive.

 

Assembly issues can be addressed with training and process changes.

 

Parts/supplier issues will be more difficult to control.

 

Right now I think the sales increases from new technology and new designs are outweighing any losses from disgruntled customers but that needs to be remedied soon or it will hurt long term.

[akirby]

And most importantly build products that people want to buy......

 

People will ignore a lot of problems if they love the product.

[aneekr]

The Explorer was the lowest rated Ford model yet "Consumer Reports auto testing director Jake Fisher said more than 20% of Ford Explorer owners who filled out a survey reported problems with their vehicle"

 

20% for the worst model during a full year of ownership?

 

80% reported no problems during a full year of ownership?

 

The industry average for JD Power's 2012 quality survey was 102 problems per 100 vehicles.

 

Would be nice if CR gave more insight into their methodology.

 

Is this really actionable data for consumers?

 

An overview of Consumer Reports' methodology for its reliability survey is available in the Best & Worst New Cars issue as well as the April Automotive issue.

 

J.D. Power IQS metrics for problems per 100 vehicles are not comparable to the corresponding numbers in Consumer Reports' Automotive Reliability Survey. The latter is much more specific to serious problems that affect driveability and incur significant costs and/or downtime for the owner, and not concerned with design issues like controls being difficult to use.

 

Typically, the problem rate for a new vehicle in Consumer Reports' survey is around 11 to 13 percent. So the Explorer's >20% rate is exceptionally high for 2012 models (note that 2012 MY vehicles typically have less than 3,000 miles on them at the time respondents completed their survey this year). To provide a basis for comparison, a five year old Toyota Highlander had a problem rate less than 20% in the 2010 survey.

[aneekr]

These are not warranty issues, this is all about customers complaining about MFT being hard to use.

 

That is NOT what either J.D. Power IQS or Consumer Reports' Automotive Reliability Survey indicate! Ford quality issues are far more widespread than that.

 

That 1988 NYT article on Ford I posted earlier in this thread is looking more and more relevant. Will history repeat itself?

[mackinaw]

.......... So the Explorer's >20% rate is exceptionally high for 2012 models (note that 2012 MY vehicles typically have less than 3,000 miles on them at the time respondents completed their survey this year). To provide a basis for comparison, a five year old Toyota Highlander had a problem rate less than 20% in the 2010 survey.

 

 

You want to know why the Explorer fared so badly? Go to the Ford Employee sub forum and read the thread about CAP. Of course everything in this thread is hearsay, but it's also an eye-opener into what's happening at the plant that makes the Explorer. If true, it's not good.

[RichardJensen]

not concerned with design issues like controls being difficult to use

I'm inclined to doubt that, as it relates to MFT.

 

MFT issues DID cause significant downtime for many owners, and continue to cause downtime/interfere with operability for a nontrivial number of current owners. An owner who had his car in the shop on three different occasions for MFT is going to mark down the vehicle in some category.

[RichardJensen]

That 1988 NYT article on Ford I posted earlier in this thread is looking more and more relevant. Will history repeat itself?

 

No. This data isn't telling us anything new. It basically says, "Ford did lousy on the last two IQSes", which we already knew. Thankyouverymuch.

[Kev-Mo]

This is big problem for Ford. It is the way everyday people (not loyalists on a forum) see and rationalize things.

 

I will start with saying this - statistically, there is not much difference in quality among the 30 brands. For example: 1.1 problems per vehicle is technically the same as 1.6 problems per vehicle because a single consumer cannot experience .5 of a problem. The .5 difference could cost several places in the rankings. It is the actual rankings that cause sensationalized news, even though it is almost meaningless.

 

Here is where the problem lies. My SoCal wife constantly says (here in Colorado) “It always snows on Halloween”. Truth is; it has snowed once on Halloween in the 15 years she has lived here. It is common for the average person to rationalize bad news or experiences as a pattern and ignore good news (you can Google that and see articles). When an average consumer who does not care about brand loyalty hears this ranking, they will rationalize their choice not to purchase a Ford by saying year after year; “Ford is at the bottom in quality”.

[RichardJensen]

True. To a certain extent.

 

However, this is spilled milk. There's nothing Ford can do about this data. If you run this thread up to a hundred pages or two hundred, saying, "This is bad news for Ford", well, what's your point? Of course it's bad news. The JDP stuff was bad news too.

 

Ford can't fix the past. And given the short-term-questionable decision to transition three very important products to brand new architectures in two years, while launching a brand new technology, perhaps this was to be expected.

 

Bottom line is this: these results matter, but the only thing Ford can do is improve them going forward. And with only 1 out of 6 cars sold carrying a Ford badge, Ford can have a negative reputation with 80% of all new-car buyers without hindering sales.

[FordBuyer]

This is big problem for Ford. It is the way everyday people (not loyalists on a forum) see and rationalize things.

 

I will start with saying this - statistically, there is not much difference in quality among the 30 brands. For example: 1.1 problems per vehicle is technically the same as 1.6 problems per vehicle because a single consumer cannot experience .5 of a problem. The .5 difference could cost several places in the rankings. It is the actual rankings that cause sensationalized news, even though it is almost meaningless.

 

Here is where the problem lies. My SoCal wife constantly says (here in Colorado) “It always snows on Halloween”. Truth is; it has snowed once on Halloween in the 15 years she has lived here. It is common for the average person to rationalize bad news or experiences as a pattern and ignore good news (you can Google that and see articles). When an average consumer who does not care about brand loyalty hears this ranking, they will rationalize their choice not to purchase a Ford by saying year after year; “Ford is at the bottom in quality”.

 

I would agree. This is not good PR for Ford as this gets much media attention, and undermines the billions Ford spends on getting its advertising message out. It won't change my mind on replacing my Ford with another Ford, but it will affect conquest sales rate over time. Where I've been affected by the media is that I will not buy a Ford with MFT. I've heard enough, and friends of mine who have MFT have nothing good to say about it for most part. No 1.6 EB for me with its recalls and underpowered at freeway speed, and no MFT. Narrows choices for me, but there is enough remaining to satisfy me on my next Ford product.

[RichardJensen]

as this gets much media attention

Dude:

[Deanh]

 

 

Don't dismiss this because it's Consumer's Reports. Whether I like it or not, a lot of Ma and Pa Americans consult CR when they decide to buy a new car. They don't read Motor Trend, Car & Driver or look at Blue Oval News. CR means a lot to many people. And they do base what they buy on what CR says or recommends.

That being said, I doubt this will have much effect on Ford's sales. Chrysler has been scraping the bottle of the barrel, quality-wise, for years and has been doing well as of late when it comes to vehicle sales. If you really like a vehicle, you're just going to buy it.

and there-in youve hit a proverbial nail on thehead...your Ma and Pa comment incinuates an older demographic...and thats THE crowd that is having the most issues with modern tech....mainly MFT and Sync

[RichardJensen]

I don't want to minimize this data---rather, it should be put in perspective.

 

This is data that Ford already has.

 

Every service visit reported to CU has already been logged (and paid for--since it's probably under warranty) by Ford.

 

If the Explorer is logging more service time than comparable CUVs, you can bet Ford already knows this.

 

And, insofar as the issues are related to existing MFT installs, to a certain extent all Ford can do is wince, suck it up, and deal with it as best as possible.

 

Issues with the launches of the Focus and Escape seem to have been ironed out by now, and the Fusion launch seems to be running much more smoothly. Probably as a result of the lessons learned on the Focus and Escape that have pulled those results down.

[Deanh]

I don't want to minimize this data---rather, it should be put in perspective.

 

This is data that Ford already has.

 

Every service visit reported to CU has already been logged (and paid for--since it's probably under warranty) by Ford.

 

If the Explorer is logging more service time than comparable CUVs, you can bet Ford already knows this.

 

And, insofar as the issues are related to existing MFT installs, to a certain extent all Ford can do is wince, suck it up, and deal with it as best as possible.

 

Issues with the launches of the Focus and Escape seem to have been ironed out by now, and the Fusion launch seems to be running much more smoothly. Probably as a result of the lessons learned on the Focus and Escape that have pulled those results down.

what frustrates me is the batch and hold system was initiated to bring potential issues to a head PRIOR to release.....things such as fuel lines, transmissions in need of reflashes etc should have already been nipped in the bud....oh how I revel in "progress" and the ever increasing complexity of the horseless carriage.

[RichardJensen]

what frustrates me is the batch and hold system was initiated to bring potential issues to a head PRIOR to release.....things such as fuel lines, transmissions in need of reflashes etc should have already been nipped in the bud....oh how I revel in "progress" and the ever increasing complexity of the horseless carriage.

 

It *appears* that Ford may have skipped some QC steps on the Focus & Escape launches, in order to keep pace with demand. Biker reported that alignment lasers were turned off at Wayne (which squares with poor body alignment on lots as reported by, IIRC, aneekr), engines coming over from Bridgend were, apparently, not closely inspected, etc.

Edited October 30, 2012 by RichardJensen

[Deanh]

 

 

It *appears* that Ford may have skipped some QC steps on the Focus & Escape launches, in order to keep pace with demand. Biker reported that alignment lasers were turned off at Wayne (which squares with poor body alignment on lots as reported by, IIRC, aneekr), engines coming over from Bridgend were, apparently, not closely inspected, etc.

and ultimately "rushing" is the root of the problem....somewhere the process is flawed, I can only HOPE due to the several niggly release issues that the Media FEASTS on, have been adressed......

[RichardJensen]

The process is fine. But at some level unjustifiable deviations from the process were approved.

[akirby]

and ultimately "rushing" is the root of the problem....somewhere the process is flawed

 

The process isn't necessarily flawed if a conscious decision was made to circumvent certain steps in order to meet production goals provided the risks were clearly known and accepted.

 

You have to look at the risk vs. the reward and decide if it's worth it and sometimes you get burned.

[akirby]

The process is fine. But at some level unjustifiable deviations from the process were approved.

 

No way to tell if they were unjustifiable without knowing the consequences of not making those deviations. It's entirely possible that the net benefits of getting those products out the door quickly outweighed the negatives. Only Ford knows and they have to make adjustments accordingly.

 

I've done a lot of things that I knew were wrong because it was the best option at the time given the circumstances. As long as you understand and accept the risk you're ok from a process standpoint.

[RichardJensen]

While your statement is true, I can't see how it could be in any way applicable in this circumstance.

 

Turning off QC measures must be assumed to lead to worse quality. And worse quality has a tendency to affect the company for the mid-term, in the form of ongoing costs to fix these issues, as well as negative press.

 

Assuming that worse quality was an expected outcome of this, what short term gains could possibly offset that? A few thousand additional units sold? Unnecessary. Ford's operating margins are already among the best in the business. They don't need to goose their topline numbers at the expense of reputation and ongoing headaches.