Ford looking to spend big bucks on Lincoln over the next few years.

[RichardJensen]

And, as a reminder: The GR-1 was about as good looking a concept car as we've seen in quite a while.

[TBirdStangSkyliner]

And, as a reminder: The GR-1 was about as good looking a concept car as we've seen in quite a while.

It was attractive, but it was metallic finished with gullwing/scissor doors.....McFly...

[RichardJensen]

As long as they weren't putting Renault motors into it in Belfast...........

[jpd80]

Had some poor GMI tragic trying to tell us that Lincoln does not sell enough car to fund its development costs

yet in the same breath says that Cadillac is solidly profitable ( not withstanding 30,000 unsold ATS and CTS...)

[Biker16]

The plan was to raise enough cash to reduce production capacity by closing down 14 plants and reducing employees

by around 40,000 making Ford more efficient in front of an expected huge cash burn, they only just made it.

 

New products were secondary to survival and reducing costs.

 

I seemed to remember it was used to fund a "product led recovery"

[RichardJensen]

 

I seemed to remember it was used to fund a "product led recovery"

 

"Beancounters", as you call them, are responsible for keeping the company profitable. Product engineers are not.

[jpd80]

 

I seemed to remember it was used to fund a "product led recovery"

That's about as revisionst as it gets.

A product lead recovery that first required the closure of 14 plants and the elimination of 40,000 to 50,000 existing jobs

that created such a massive cash burn that most critics though Ford would not survive......

 

The "product lead recovery" came only after all of those plants were closed, staff reduced and platform count reduced.

Only then beyond GM's bankruptcy did we see new Ford products like Fiesta, Focus, Escape, Fusion, ect..

Edited October 29, 2014 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

The money was borrowed so that Ford could reduce capacity & workforce without compromising ongoing investment.

 

So it's a little of both. Ford continued R&D at a good clip while burning cash on capacity actions.

[jpd80]

The money was borrowed so that Ford could reduce capacity & workforce without compromising ongoing investment.

 

So it's a little of both. Ford continued R&D at a good clip while burning cash on capacity actions.

The important part was that the $23B was borrowed primarily to reduce capacity and change structure,

but yes, that also included budgets for ongoing products needed to turn the ship around.

 

It was kind of neat to see how Ford cut production to stem losses and made more money

by building fewer vehicles - something completely at odds with conventional Detroit wisdom

of increasing production to improve business position.

 

Also credit to the UAW for offering VEBA funding to Ford in return for more work for American plants,

that shows real faith in the company and trust between partners and a desire on Ford's part to

work with the Union.

Edited October 29, 2014 by jpd80

[Biker16]

 

"Beancounters", as you call them, are responsible for keeping the company profitable. Product engineers are not.

Executives don't equal bean counters, Leader don't equal bean counters. no one would call Mulally or Fields bean counters.

 

Bean counter like yourself view opportunities from the perspective of what can we lose?", where leader and people with vision view an opportunity from the perspective of "what can we gain?"

 

investments in Lincoln are being done from the perspective of a leader, not from that of a bean counter thus is the reason why the RWD explorer thread has you so grumpy.

[Biker16]

That's about as revisionst as it gets.

A product lead recovery that first required the closure of 14 plants and the elimination of 40,000 to 50,000 existing jobs

that created such a massive cash burn that most critics though Ford would not survive......

 

The "product lead recovery" came only after all of those plants were closed, staff reduced and platform count reduced.

Only then beyond GM's bankruptcy did we see new Ford products like Fiesta, Focus, Escape, Fusion, ect..

 

 

JPD this wasn't the first of the Second time Ford went on a cost cutting binge in north America. everyone forgets 2000-2008

[Edstock]

 

 

JPD this wasn't the first of the Second time Ford went on a cost cutting binge in north America. everyone forgets 2000-2008

 

While they invested in the 6-speed automatic JV with GM, and created the Volvo-derived 500 and the Mazda-derived Fusion as well as tooling up for the 2005 Mustang? That kind of cost-cutting binge?

[Gnostic]

 

While they invested in the 6-speed automatic JV with GM, and created the Volvo-derived 500 and the Mazda-derived Fusion as well as tooling up for the 2005 Mustang? That kind of cost-cutting binge?

 

I would say all those things are cost cutting measures, maybe not the mustang.

[akirby]

Product decisions without a sound financial base leads to wasted resources, failed products and bankruptcy. For further information see:

 

GM

XLR

GTO

G8

SS

Solstice/Sky

ELR

 

You can't do one without the other. Great products with no business case are worthless. Poor products with good business cases aren't exciting but they make money.

 

The trick is to find great products that have a valid business case.

[akirby]

 

I would say all those things are cost cutting measures, maybe not the mustang.

 

Creating new vehicles and platforms is not cost cutting - it's a huge expense.

[grbeck]

Had some poor GMI tragic trying to tell us that Lincoln does not sell enough car to fund its development costs

yet in the same breath says that Cadillac is solidly profitable ( not withstanding 30,000 unsold ATS and CTS...)

I read that exchange, and about spit out my coffee when I read that particular post. Cadillac could very well be profitable, but it's most likely because of the Escalade and SRX, not the ATS and CTS.

[grbeck]

Creating new vehicles and platforms is not cost cutting - it's a huge expense.

That is true, but the way Ford did it was very cost-effective. Using existing - but new for Ford - platforms helped hold down total costs.

[akirby]

That is true, but the way Ford did it was very cost-effective. Using existing - but new for Ford - platforms helped hold down total costs.

 

But that's just smart development. It's still totally different than closing plants or cancelling vehicles which is cost cutting.

 

I don't think Ford has ever cut back significantly on R&D spending even during the hard times.

[theoldwizard]

...not that I believe the D6 will have anything to do with LincStang(s)...

Lincoln's $5B revival bid hinges upon new D6 chassis

 

If new reports are accurate, the brand (Lincoln) is poised to build on that momentum with its largest investment in new products in years thanks in large measure to a new modular platform codenamed D6.

.

.

.

The springboard for the Lincoln revival plan is a new family of vehicles that will be built on a highly flexible premium platform that can be configured for front-, rear- and all-wheel-drive vehicles, according to industry sources familiar with Ford's plans.

[akirby]

It's CD6.

[RichardJensen]

Bean counter like yourself view opportunities from the perspective of what can we lose?", where leader and people with vision view an opportunity from the perspective of "what can we gain?"

 

Which one of us has been complaining all over this forum about the aluminum F150?

[RichardJensen]

the reason why the RWD explorer thread has you so grumpy.

 

Right.

 

I recall repeatedly pointing out that making the Explorer RWD added cost without adding value.

 

And what's the news out of this thread?

 

That Ford is not going to be making a RWD Explorer.

 

So, tell me again how wrong I am about things....

 

Or are you going to let the out-of-context quote in your signature do all your talking?

[jpd80]

And lets remember that these sources in the OP are talking about things to be launched in 2019 as 2020 models,

that's still like five years away and more to the point is what Ford will be doing with Lincoln in the mean time.

this is why some of us have a hard time believing that a RWD Utility outside of SWB and LWB Navigator

will fill that void, the new alloy body will most likely reduce navigator's weight down from 5.600 to more like

4,600 or kust above the current MKT. I could see a reconfiguration of Navigator to cover both segments.

 

Later reports referring to D6 have dropped reference to RWD, maybe that was a conclusion made by a sources..

Edited October 29, 2014 by jpd80

[silvrsvt]

 

While they invested in the 6-speed automatic JV with GM, and created the Volvo-derived 500 and the Mazda-derived Fusion as well as tooling up for the 2005 Mustang? That kind of cost-cutting binge?

 

Don't forget about the 2004 F-150 or the Ford GT too!

[silvrsvt]

And lets remember that these sources in the OP are talking about things to be launched in 2019 as 2020 models,

that's still like five years away and more to the point is what Ford will be doing with Lincoln in the mean time.

this is whay some of us have a hard time believing that a RWD Utility outside of SWB and LWB Navigator

will fill that void, the new alloy body will most likely reduce navigator's weight down from 5.600 to more like

4,600 or kust above the current MKT. I could see a reconfiguration of Navigator to cover both segments.

 

The problem IMO is that Lincoln needs something to slot between the MKX and Navigator....and that would be a Lincoln Explorer.

 

The Quazi RWD/AWD platform they are talking about would be a great starting point for that and the Explorer.