Ford haults Focus and C-Max production

[mackinaw]

 

Bingo! To a lot of hybrid buyers, it's all about saying "look at me, I'm driving this POS for you so that I can save the environment for you! Bow down and worship me!"

 

Well, that may be a bit over the top, but you get the idea.

 

Which is why the nickname for the Prius is the "Pious."

[jpd80]

It's interesting to look across sales in what Ford calls its super segmnt Fiesta-Focus-Escape/C-max and Fusion.

While Focus and C-max sales are down a bit, I'm thinking those lower sales are balanced out by rises other super segment vehicles.

 

 

FYI,

So far this month, Ford has built 6.026 Fusions at Flat Rock.

Edited October 27, 2013 by jpd80

[Biker16]

 

I think a conventional C-Max would steal a lot of Escape and Focus sales though so the net increase would not be worth it. You would also lose the exclusivity that comes with the C-Max being hybrid only which I think is a big selling point just like it is for the Prius. When you see a C-Max you know it's a hybrid.

 

stealing sales like it something Ford is guaranteed to have. I thought Ford was in business of giving customers what they wanted not protecting products form each other.

 

Options for MAP.

Do nothing and hope the 2015 Focus refresh recovers lost volume.

Add focus wagon production (easy to do and cost effective espcially wihen the cost of idling a plant with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt on it.)

Add a non hybrid C-max (easy to do and cost effective)

Add Escape production ( Should be simple to do, may not be able to produce AWD variants)

Add Transit connect production ( costs and complexity unknown, is currently built along side the Kuga and or C-max 7 in Spain)

Add Lincoln C sized Sedan/ hatch ( Simple to do, and likely cost effective With the anticipated increase in ASP)

 

Ford cannot continue to base its growth predictions only on mass volume products like the focus, fusion and Escape, it needs to grow the lineup to fill in gaps like this when ford is losing 16,000 units of production during this downtime.

 

Adding a couple of higher margin Low to medium volume products to the lineup would do a lot to mitigate the cyclical troughs of mass market products.

 

 

 

Would they ship the stamped sheetmetal in? I don't know if Ford is ready to do a second set of tooling for the Escape.

 

Alot the sheet metal is being shipped from MAP to LAP right now.

[jpd80]

I'm betting that the easy option was to idle the plant for two weeks in two months.

Since 2006, Ford has never seen maximizing production as a priority above profitability and if anything chooses to be tardy on production increases

as it monitors growth in the US marhket. The main upside to this is restrictive inventory keeps transaction prices up and incentives under control.

 

The easiest option for Ford is to build out inventory over the slower winter months in preparation for buyers returning in spring.

There's no need to increase production of Escape just yet as I'm betting that Ford will shrewdly balance out production in what

it calls the super segment cars with rotational incentive/leasing deals to keep sales on the boil. We're seeing it already with

Fiesta, Escape and Fusion all doing better this year while Focus/C-Max sales were down a bit.

Edited October 27, 2013 by jpd80

[Biker16]

I think you misunderstood.

 

Rather than assemble the Escape in two places in order to assemble the MKC on the same line as the Escape, you assemble the MKC at MAP and the Escape at LAP.

 

the issue is your low volume prodcut has more commonality both in parts and procedure with the escape than with the Focus and C-max.

 

s making 30,000 MKcs at MAP would require more work and added effort to assemble than if it were assembled at LAP. this added burden would be spread over those 30,000 MKc along with the cost of tooling PD, etc, already being paid for by those 30,000 MKc.

 

thing s look different with the Escape because all of the tooling doesn't need to be duplicated to add production to another plant, like i said earlier, MAP already ships parts to LAP for escape production, so the tooling that would need to be duplicated (large body stampings, and other difficult of inappropriate to ship stampings mainly) are far less than what would be required for an all new product, you simply produce stamping and ship what is needed to MAP.

 

To simplfiy this:

LAP needs 100% of tooling to make escapes.

MAP would need to duplicate only 10% of the tooling to add escape production, plus the other factory accommodations need to assemble the product.

 

You increase production by changing over the dies less frequently, and not by adding more Dies to produces more parts, generally. most presses spend a decent about of time during changing dies, Doing it less frequently increases efficiency.

 

with products with already high commonality like the MKc and escape the need for new tooling is limited to exterior panels and in some case new cowl, and body side Stampings.

 

The stamping plant that was just built there is integrated into the Transit side of the plant. They have one major press line that stamps out all of the Transit panels and had sub assemblies in the same building. The body shop puts it together.

 

probably a couple giant Schuler presses

 

like this one.

 

[EBFlex]

Weren't we being talked at a while ago on how well the C-max and Focus were selling? My how times rapidly change.

[Pioneer]

probably a couple giant Schuler presses

 

like this one.

 

 

The press is made by a company named Jier. They are a Chinese company. Same presses that are being installed in Dearborn. KCAP only has one press.

[Biker16]

The press is made by a company named Jier. They are a Chinese company. Same presses that are being installed in Dearborn. KCAP only has one press.

Chinese?

 

isn't that something, I wonder how much IP they stole, to make those presses?

[lfeg]

Jier is selling quite a few large presses. low price sells.

[wildosvt]

 

the issue is your low volume prodcut has more commonality both in parts and procedure with the escape than with the Focus and C-max.

 

 

 

The Escape and C-max are much closer that you realize. And C-max is far from being the same as a focus or even common. Bank on it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by wildosvt

[Biker16]

The Escape and C-max are much closer that you realize. And C-max is far from being the same as a focus or even common. Bank on it.

There are little things like the door hinges on the escape are different, from the focus and cmax, and how the doors on the escape include the visible rocker panels, while the focus and cmax doors do not. Lets not forget the escape has a longer wheelbase too, and every product at MAP has the same wheelbase. It is likely the mkc will borrow all of these detail from the escape not the focus.

 

It would be more logical to add a focus coupe, Lincoln sedan, and or focus wagon to MAP than the escape or Mkc, IMO.

[Pioneer]

Lets not forget the escape has a longer wheelbase too, and every product at MAP has the same wheelbase.

Wheelbase means nothing in a flex body shop when assembling the vehicle. Individual parts mean nothing. That's what makes them "flex"ible.

[jpd80]

While common wheelbase makes manufacturing even easier, changes in wheelbase on the same platform have been done for decades in non-flex plants.

Flex plants are designed to handle much more than basic platform derivatives, you could build, Focus, C-Max, Grand C-Max, even Transit and transit Connect.

[Biker16]

Wheelbase means nothing in a flex body shop when assembling the vehicle. Individual parts mean nothing. That's what makes them "flex"ible.

 

 

While common wheelbase makes manufacturing even easier, changes in wheelbase on the same platform have been done for decades in non-flex plants.

Flex plants are designed to handle much more than basic platform derivatives, you could build, Focus, C-Max, Grand C-Max, even Transit and transit Connect.

 

the body shop isn't the problem neither is the paint or to a lesser extent is chassis, the only issue would be final, and little things like using different door assembly and mounting procedures, has an effect on how the plant functions.

 

For the record there is no reason why MAP cannot build any Uni-body vehicle ford makes, the only restriction is how much effort ford wants to invest to make it happen and the quality and efficiency consequences for the plant when complexity increases.

 

I strongly Believe That Ford is putting this investment in Flex and will never be able to fully Exploit it because you are penalized for every new product added with decreases in productivity, the more dissimilar the product the greater the penalty. This problem is sourced in the most manual part of the plant the final/trim line, the solution is to share the most automated parts of the production body and paint, and maybe even chassis, and create Two or more parallel final/trim lines.

 

With the current arrangement you are always limited by the complexity of your most complex model.

 

Honda does this in Alabama, where both the Honda Odyssey, Pilot, Ridgeline, Acura MDX are produced, the impact of hanging doors on a minivan vs a CUV would slow down a traditional line because they are so dissimilar, but by splitting the line you can better optimize the flow of production with only minivans on one line and the CUVs on the other line.

 

 

Toyota does the same thing with the Sienna in Indiana, where that plant produces:

• Toyota Sequoia (2000–Present)
• Toyota Sienna (2003–Present)
• Toyota Highlander (2009–Present)

The Highlander and Sienna are platform mates yet they are not produced on the same final line, but share Body, Paint and chassis.

 

Ford uses this in europe in the fiesta plant in germany, which BTW only take 12 hours to build Each car the benefits are:

 

 

 

In the trim and final assembly area, Ford created two identical lines, each capable of building all derivatives. Ford will normally build the five-door Fiesta on one line and the Fusion on the other, with the three-door Fiesta on both. With two lines, back-to-back model change-over is possible with minimum launch loss. Production of all remaining models can use one line while the other is stopped to be modified.

Each line is split into five segments: two for trim, two for chassis and one for final assembly. Using a Japanese idea, each segment is separated with a buffer zone that can hold a variable number of cars. The idea is to encourage operators to stop their part of the line as needed to fix flaws without halting the entire operation.

"We want there to be stoppages. Stoppages provide the means to identify areas for improvement and are the basis of the management system," said Jonathan Ballard, lean adviser at Cologne. He was formerly engineering manager at Toyota's Burnaston, England, plant.

Ford adopted other changes after benchmarking exercises with Japanese transplant operations in the UK and France.

• For one, Ford doubled the TAKT, or cycle, time to 79 seconds at each station to match Toyota and Nissan practices. With more time operators complete more of a task, improving quality and reducing unproductive time - such as walking to and from tasks - by up to 20 percent, Ballard said.

Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20020923/SUB/209230878/ford-gets-rid-of-the-bottlenecks-in-cologne#ixzz2jguZHXkh

 

the question is why isn't this model being used in the US?

Edited November 4, 2013 by Biker16

[akirby]

the question is why isn't this model being used in the US?

 

Too much legacy capacity in older plants. I'm sure if Ford built a new plant or totally remodeled an existing plant today they would follow this model.

[MKII]

 

Too much legacy capacity in older plants. I'm sure if Ford built a new plant or totally remodeled an existing plant today they would follow this model.

Wasn't LAP & MAP totally remodeled?

[NickF1011]

I strongly Believe That Ford is putting this investment in Flex and will never be able to fully Exploit it because you are penalized for every new product added with decreases in productivity, the more dissimilar the product the greater the penalty. This problem is sourced in the most manual part of the plant the final/trim line, the solution is to share the most automated parts of the production body and paint, and maybe even chassis, and create Two or more parallel final/trim lines.

 

Doesn't flex also assist in easing model changeover when a vehicle gets redesigned? Even if the plant doesn't build more than one model, I would think there'd still be a substantial benefit there.

[jpd80]

Apart from FRAP and OAC, Ford really doesn't utilize the concept of Flex plants, it doesn't need to because the real issue

with Flex plants is the supplier park set up needed to deliver parts just in time for different models, you really can't change that over night.

[Biker16]

 

Doesn't flex also assist in easing model changeover when a vehicle gets redesigned? Even if the plant doesn't build more than one model, I would think there'd still be a substantial benefit there.

I think that was the primary benefit they were looking for. not flexibility of product mix.

 

understand there isn't a production penalty for using shorter lines, i think there is simply a culture that doesn't see the value within the company, and unfortunately is allowing opportunity for profitably building lower volume products to not be realized, this really isn't about Ford but more about how to give Lincoln the low volume products it will need in the future.

 

 

Apart from FRAP and OAC, Ford really doesn't utilize the concept of Flex plants, it doesn't need to because the real issue

with Flex plants is the supplier park set up needed to deliver parts just in time for different models, you really can't change that over night.

 

you don't need a supplier park to build this way. In southeast Michigan with the density of part suppliers, there is little need for supplier parks.

 

again i think it was an short sighted decision not to build this way, Ford IMO has gotten themselves into a corner, if they were a little more forward thinking they could have idled only half of MAP for 4 weeks and retooled the other half for new products like the Escape, or MKC, or Transit connect, or any other product the body shop could build.

 

When the growth of mainstream model become saturated you will need more low volume products to maintain momentum, and the current plant layouts isn't conducive to that.

 

If am wrong please correct me.

 

BTW OAC uses one line for all products, FRAP could be considered a flex plant but not in a good way, with separate body shop and chassis lines being used for the two products produced there.

 

In general ford North America has been slow to embrace modern transfer presses, which make the most sense when you need to produce a wider variety of parts, and in smaller batches.

 

with the new press they are putting in at KCAP, they can build every variant of the transit.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Biker16

[wildosvt]

Biker, MAP is small, Really small. It is MUCH smaller than WAP is. The place is cramped. There is no way in hell that what your thinking would fit or even work in there. I have heard from an outside source that something else is going to join what is currently built there. I have no more than a smile to go off of.

 

I won't elaborate, But Ford is constantly improving the workings inside of MAP. It is the plant they want to show off the most, And has been this way for a while. No other plant is doing what MAP is doing.

[Romans5.8]

Is this going to delay a Focus I special ordered? Wonder if that's why this is taking a while!

 

If Dealers would stock more than one or two cookie cutter Focuses I think we'd be okay! I see a lot of guys special ordering these. Awesome bang for the buck packages like the Sport package (around $600 right now and includes rear disc brakes, improved seats, fog lamps, leather wrapped steering wheel, and other things I'm probably forgetting) are often not on the cars, and if you want a manual transmission? Good luck finding one (though I realize a lot of that is due to the market shifting away from manuals). My dealer basically either had top-end Titanium trims or bargain-basement models. Nothing in the middle like I wanted!

Edited November 7, 2013 by Romans5.8