Jump to content

Midcycle updates grow more extensive, more expensive


Recommended Posts

As a shareholder it allows me to judge how profitable the company will be in the future.

Both companies are looking to reduce development costs by 30% per product. Which allows them to react faster and at lower l to changes in market preference and demand.

As an investor I would see this as positive, a company invests in growth and cost reduction as opposed one that simply cuts costs.

The problem is what Ford thinks is profitable and what it needs to invest in is probably different than what you think it should be investing in. It should be clear that Ford isn't simply cutting costs.

 

I see a balanced portfolio with 1/3 cars, 1/3 trucks and vans and 1/3 utilities and a $10B annual profit with a steady stream of new products and refreshes. I trust Ford knows where to invest to get the best return and you can't argue with the results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is what Ford thinks is profitable and what it needs to invest in is probably different than what you think it should be investing in. It should be clear that Ford isn't simply cutting costs.

 

I see a balanced portfolio with 1/3 cars, 1/3 trucks and vans and 1/3 utilities and a $10B annual profit with a steady stream of new products and refreshes. I trust Ford knows where to invest to get the best return and you can't argue with the results.

And this time around with product cycles, Ford will do the various car once with regional variations as required.

This is when Ford becomes more like Toyota and reaps the benefit of aligning platforms.

 

While the current Focus and Fusion /Mondeo are heavily reworked versions of their previous Euro predecessors,

that grayfield approach saved the company Billions before any cars were produced by unifying design and supplier

base. Ford needs to build on that solid foundation with a next generation vehicle envelope that better focuses on what

customers want and need.

 

Fusion sales are still strong at ~300K/year which is an endorsement from buyers keeping it at No. 3 or 4.

Focus is suffering the compact blues with ~200K/yr sales but Cruze also has an off year dropping from

275K to ~225K last year. Not suggesting that all Compacts are off but perhaps GM and Ford's strong

array of Utilities and incentives attracted / converted significant numbers of compact buyers?

 

I'll go to my grave believing this:

If Ford put the Focus hatch body on a Escape AWD floorpan and power trains,

MAP would be flat out with three shifts and we wouldn't be discussing Focus/C-Max..

 

-jpd80

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is what Ford thinks is profitable and what it needs to invest in is probably different than what you think it should be investing in. It should be clear that Ford isn't simply cutting costs.

 

Do you know what Ford thinks it needs to invest in?

 

Do you know ford isn't simply cutting costs by delaying product investments?

 

You seems to have alot of faith in a company that has historically neglected it's cars, how is today any different?

 

I believe Ford has a Plan but they are being very secretive about it, and that makes it difficult for the investor to hold them accountable.

 

I see a balanced portfolio with 1/3 cars, 1/3 trucks and vans and 1/3 utilities and a $10B annual profit with a steady stream of new products and refreshes. I trust Ford knows where to invest to get the best return and you can't argue with the results.

 

You numbers Don't make sense, unless you are only looking at North America. again the growth in car sales are not coming from north America, but in Asia, and they are buying Cars. Globally 60-70% of Ford sales are from Transverse Engines cars and CUVs never forget this. Soon VW and Toyota will have 70% of their volume on one platform, saving them 30% per nameplate in development costs.

 

What is Ford's response going to be?

 

How does ford grow from being the world's #5 automaker and not fall further behind Hyundai, GM, VW and Toyota?

Edited by Biker16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the 2018 Focus will be on an all new platform as well as having a dedicated electric vehicle. You can't just look here for Ford info because most don't post it but the news of cd6 which is said to be modular like VW. What does anybody know about the new toyota platform? How are the going to effectively use a single platform for all their cars? I just find it odd that now so many car companies are talking about a single platform for all vehicle but how close can it be when half the structure has to change in some way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford's portfolio and profit opportunities are not the same as those other companies.

 

Ford doesn't have equal access to the Japanese market nor do they have government support like Toyota and Hyundai.

 

And yes, I'm talking about NA because that's where the profits are. F150, Mustang, MKC, Edge, MKX, Continental, Transit, Super Duty - all new or heavily revised just in the last 2 years. 1.0LEB, 1.5LEB, 2.0LEB, 2.3LEB, 2.7LEB, 3.5LEB, 3.5LNA, 5.2LFPC - all brand new or redesigned within the last 4 years. New 9 and 10 spd transmissions are coming. They're investing heavily just not in the places you want them to invest.

 

I don't believe that VW or Toyota will have a huge advantage just because they have a modular platform. The vehicles aren't going to be 30% cheaper - no way no how.

 

You want Ford to grow volume regardless of profit.

 

When you've managed a global company the size of Ford to a $10B profit get back to us and we'll take your opinions more seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do you know what Ford thinks it needs to invest in?

 

Do you know ford isn't simply cutting costs by delaying product investments?

 

You seems to have alot of faith in a company that has historically neglected it's cars, how is today any different?

 

I believe Ford has a Plan but they are being very secretive about it, and that makes it difficult for the investor to hold them accountable.

 

 

You numbers Don't make sense, unless you are only looking at North America. again the growth in car sales are not coming from north America, but in Asia, and they are buying Cars. Globally 60-70% of Ford sales are from Transverse Engines cars and CUVs never forget this. Soon VW and Toyota will have 70% of their volume on one platform, saving them 30% per nameplate in development costs.

 

What is Ford's response going to be?

 

How does ford grow from being the world's #5 automaker and not fall further behind Hyundai, GM, VW and Toyota?

Looking at VW new MOB "platform", it becomes clear that this is much more than a conventional platform as we know it,

it's more like common engineering modules that can be mixed and matched but the fundamental is parts and engineering

that are of a common design even if going into different sized vehicles, the next part being a uniform manufacturing

process across all vehicles.

 

A similar process is being adopted over at Toyota where a Corolla and an Highlander are considered to be on the one platform.

Now clearly this is an expansion of our original concept of a platform to again encompass common engineering, parts design,

assembly process and common supplier base.

 

Looking at those two examples, it's clear that a lot of the savings come from elements and design long before the vehicles are built

and then completing the process with a standardzided assembly process so that production lines and assembly techniques are

standardized.

 

So to answer your question, "What is Ford's response going to be?"

 

What have we seen already with global cars?

C170 Focus gave rise to C1 in 2003 which was also the basis for EUCD, Those vehicles evolved to global C1 and CD4.

CD4 then went to work replacing CD3 and CD3S products in North America, the next step is to replace Bthe large cars

and Utility (Explorer).

 

But as people will rightly say, those vehicles are being put onto platforms that have already evolved for over ten years

of more - what's the point of that when the competition s galloping away int toe future?

 

What these current platforms do is:

1. Standardize the build proces

2. Standardize power train modules

3. Standardize Suspension designs

4. Standardize electrical and HVAC

5. Reduce parts differentiation.

6. Reduce supplier count

7. Allow plants to flex manufacture.

 

OK, the current unifying platforms are not perfect but they take Ford a big step along the road

towards being Toyota or VW equivalents, I would call today,s C1 and CD4 the dress rehearsal,

the necessary pre step in evolution of Ford culture to make it realize what is possible and make

sure that happens on the next product cycle.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toyota announced TNGA 18 months before it's debut.

 

VW annouced MQB in 2011 debuted in 2013.

 

Nobody knew about the GT. Just because you don't hear about something doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

 

 

Do you know what Ford thinks it needs to invest in?

 

Do you know ford isn't simply cutting costs by delaying product investments?

 

You seems to have alot of faith in a company that has historically neglected it's cars, how is today any different?

 

I believe Ford has a Plan but they are being very secretive about it, and that makes it difficult for the investor to hold them accountable.

 

 

You numbers Don't make sense, unless you are only looking at North America. again the growth in car sales are not coming from north America, but in Asia, and they are buying Cars. Globally 60-70% of Ford sales are from Transverse Engines cars and CUVs never forget this. Soon VW and Toyota will have 70% of their volume on one platform, saving them 30% per nameplate in development costs.

 

What is Ford's response going to be?

 

How does ford grow from being the world's #5 automaker and not fall further behind Hyundai, GM, VW and Toyota?

 

What products are they not investing in?

 

Edge just came out, MKX just came out, F-150 just came out, Super Duty just debuted, Continental just debuted, MKZ revised for 2017, Fusion revised for 2017, Expedition and Navigator due within the next year or two, new Explorer and Aviator coming, "Ranger" and "Bronco" coming, Mustang refresh coming, Focus redesign for 2018, Fiesta redesign.

 

Powertrain - akriby mentioned a few - 2.7EB just debuted, 3.0T debuted, upgraded 3.5EB, etc. etc.

 

Technology - 360 camera system, trailer backup controller, trailer cam, auto cruise bringing you to a stop, perpendicular park assist, wokring on autonomous tech, etc

 

Platforms - T6 replacement, scaleable C1/2 replacement, CD4 replacement (CD6 and these last two may be one in the same), the rumored electric/hybrid platform.

 

---

 

I think we all agree there are areas we'd like to see improvement, but to portray doom and gloom because we've not heard every piece of info about what's happening is ridiculous. Ford has been much better as of late keeping their future plans under wraps until they're ready to announce them. This isn't FCA that has obvious flaws and is clearly halting investment on future vehicles aside from a few Fiat-based Jeeps, but that's the image you're trying to paint Ford into. Sounds kind of like BORG before he left (and still - elsewhere - for that matter) where the company has made great strides, yet you point at a few unknown areas and act like the company is about to implode. And funny enough usually when he complains about something, Ford comes out with some big announcement a few days later addressing every single complaint, and then he finds some new impending catastrophe to complain about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biker16 is upset that Ford won't tell him whether they're copying VW and Toyota with their modular car platform strategy and he thinks that anything longer than 5 year full redesigns on cars is a recipe for disaster.

 

Yeah, that 6 year cycle is absolutely crazy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biker16 is upset that Ford won't tell him whether they're copying VW and Toyota with their modular car platform strategy and he thinks that anything longer than 5 year full redesigns on cars is a recipe for disaster.

 

 

Especially when Toyota produces a completely new Camry every 18 months........

 

you are being awfully childish for a moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at VW new MOB "platform", it becomes clear that this is much more than a conventional platform as we know it,

it's more like common engineering modules that can be mixed and matched but the fundamental is parts and engineering

that are of a common design even if going into different sized vehicles, the next part being a uniform manufacturing

process across all vehicles.

 

A similar process is being adopted over at Toyota where a Corolla and an Highlander are considered to be on the one platform.

Now clearly this is an expansion of our original concept of a platform to again encompass common engineering, parts design,

assembly process and common supplier base.

 

Looking at those two examples, it's clear that a lot of the savings come from elements and design long before the vehicles are built

and then completing the process with a standardzided assembly process so that production lines and assembly techniques are

standardized.

 

So to answer your question, "What is Ford's response going to be?"

 

What have we seen already with global cars?

C170 Focus gave rise to C1 in 2003 which was also the basis for EUCD, Those vehicles evolved to global C1 and CD4.

CD4 then went to work replacing CD3 and CD3S products in North America, the next step is to replace Bthe large cars

and Utility (Explorer).

 

But as people will rightly say, those vehicles are being put onto platforms that have already evolved for over ten years

of more - what's the point of that when the competition s galloping away int toe future?

 

What these current platforms do is:

1. Standardize the build proces

2. Standardize power train modules

3. Standardize Suspension designs

4. Standardize electrical and HVAC

5. Reduce parts differentiation.

6. Reduce supplier count

7. Allow plants to flex manufacture.

 

OK, the current unifying platforms are not perfect but they take Ford a big step along the road

towards being Toyota or VW equivalents, I would call today,s C1 and CD4 the dress rehearsal,

the necessary pre step in evolution of Ford culture to make it realize what is possible and make

sure that happens on the next product cycle.

 

That Sounds awfully speculative nothing you said has been public stated by Ford. Especially for company that has been unable or willing to Flex products between plants.

Edited by Biker16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford's portfolio and profit opportunities are not the same as those other companies.

 

Ford doesn't have equal access to the Japanese market nor do they have government support like Toyota and Hyundai.

 

And yes, I'm talking about NA because that's where the profits are. F150, Mustang, MKC, Edge, MKX, Continental, Transit, Super Duty - all new or heavily revised just in the last 2 years. 1.0LEB, 1.5LEB, 2.0LEB, 2.3LEB, 2.7LEB, 3.5LEB, 3.5LNA, 5.2LFPC - all brand new or redesigned within the last 4 years. New 9 and 10 spd transmissions are coming. They're investing heavily just not in the places you want them to invest.

 

I don't believe that VW or Toyota will have a huge advantage just because they have a modular platform. The vehicles aren't going to be 30% cheaper - no way no how.

 

You want Ford to grow volume regardless of profit.

 

When you've managed a global company the size of Ford to a $10B profit get back to us and we'll take your opinions more seriously.

 

I want Ford to grow enough to survive, the next 100 years. they are not IMO growing enough to do that right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"they are not IMO growing enough.."

 

What do you want? A full line of Focuses with different bodies and it be the #1 selling vehicle? How much is "enough", if ever?

 

And be "all new" every 4 years*. But, it's not the 50's or 60's with full size Galaxie/LTD getting new looks every year.

I don't care if it's 'super-duper new platform'.

 

*It is now wasteful to spend near billions for a new design car, and fan boys to expect 'all new' in a few years. Honda used to do that, but they had two car lines, and what was really all new back in the 80s and 90s?

 

 

BTW: VW has enough issues with Diesel emissions, so don't expect them to be #1 as they wanted in 2018.

Edited by 630land
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"they are not IMO growing enough.."

 

What do you want? A full line of Focuses with different bodies and it be the #1 selling vehicle? How much is "enough", if ever?

 

And be "all new" every 4 years*. But, it's not the 50's or 60's with full size Galaxie/LTD getting new looks every year.

I don't care if it's 'super-duper new platform'.

 

*It is now wasteful to spend near billions for a new design car, and fan boys to expect 'all new' in a few years. Honda used to do that, but they had two car lines, and what was really all new back in the 80s and 90s?

 

 

BTW: VW has enough issues with Diesel emissions, so don't expect them to be #1 as they wanted in 2018.

 

Globally, not just in the US. Ford is 6th in total Sales, the only NON luxury automakers with less volume than Ford is FCA, Honda and PSA. Globally it appears as if Ford is being pushed into being a 2nd tier Automaker, and no longer competitive With VW, Toyota and GM, as they use their volume to push their costs down.

 

What if PSA and FCA merge?

When will Ford be as strong in ROW as they are in the US?

 

Is Ford strong enough?

in order of Sales 2013

Toyota 9.98 million (10.23 million in 2015)

GM 9.71 million

VW 9.7 million

Nissan/Renault 8.2 million

Hyundai/KIa 7.5 milion

Ford 6.3 million

FCA 4.3 million

Honda 4 million

PSA 2.8 million

BMW 1.9 million

 

I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's 2013. What about 2014 and 2015?

 

 

Or better yet, the trend for say, 5 years. One year is far too small of a sample size to be able to judge anything.

 

The Data is public look for yourself.

 

FYI Ford sold 6.323 million units in 2014 down from 6.330 million in 2013

 

While the US market had record year ~17 million unit sold, While China 24.60 million cars were sold last year, up 4.7 percent from 2014.

 

The US is the #rd largest Automarket in the World

 

China 24.6 million.

Europe 18.6 milion.

US 17.5 million.

 

IMO there is alot of work to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Globally, not just in the US. Ford is 6th in total Sales, the only NON luxury automakers with less volume than Ford is FCA, Honda and PSA. Globally it appears as if Ford is being pushed into being a 2nd tier Automaker, and no longer competitive With VW, Toyota and GM, as they use their volume to push their costs down.

 

What if PSA and FCA merge?

When will Ford be as strong in ROW as they are in the US?

 

Is Ford strong enough?

 

This, IMO, is a valid point, and certainly worthy of consideration. Perhaps the discussion could be framed in terms of scale, as in what is adequate global scale for a global automaker to be successful in its goals? If you consider the volumes posted by Biker, it is worth asking the question of whether or not Ford has adequate scale to control its costs to the same extent as the larger companies. This is a very complicated subject, in that a simple look at the sales totals is inadequate - the sales would need to be considered by product/chassis, i.e. does Ford's global c chassis volume (and implicit cost competitiveness) compare favorably with, say GM's volume (and implicit cost competitiveness). Even that metric is inadequate, because the source of the production would come into play (low cost or high cost country), etc., etc., etc.. Ford's global volume might be perfectly fine in some areas, less than optimal in others.

 

I am persuaded that Ford indeed considers these metrics, but does not speak about all of them publicly for competitive reasons. It seems that some things will bubble to the surface 18-24 months ahead of becoming public, but not every time. What I would say to Biker is that Ford's current results are very good, and are built on the pain that was endured in Alan Mulally's early days when cuts and more cuts were the rule of the day. His first mission was to build a company that could withstand the next downturn. If we are to believe what has been stated publicly, the lessons were learned and remain heeded to this day.

 

That stated, I think the scepticism expressed by Biker is healthy - hopefully there are those within Ford's management strata that aren't afraid to challenge the status quo - the go along to get along mentality is one of the things that continues to cripple GM. IMO this is a very complicated area of discussion with intricate details that don't lend themselves to straightforward answers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That Sounds awfully speculative nothing you said has been public stated by Ford.

Mulally's adoption of C1 and CD4 as global products, eliminating many other platforms along the way.

Ford has spoken at length about a standardized construction process where vehicles are built the same way

and each station does the same job. The reduction of the supplier base and the use of more common parts

designs, power trains across many vehicles......continued reduction of platform numbers....

 

what part of that is speculative?

 

Especially for company that has been unable or willing to Flex products between plants.

Except for F150, Fusion and maybe Escape, there are no other vehicles that need to be built in two plants.

Your insistence on this imperative of Flex manufacturing is for the most part baseless in relation to actual sales.

 

The rise of Escape volume to maxing out LAP is a relatively recent development due in part to sharing with MKC.

 

I want Ford to grow enough to survive, the next 100 years. they are not IMO growing enough to do that right now.

That Sounds awfully speculative......

 

Patience grashopper, Fields plays a more expansive game than Mulally

and there's more products and production volume on the way.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ford's major issue internationally is turning all of those divisions into profit earners, we've seen the first part,

stemming losses and controlling the cost of manufacturing but clearly, the only way to do that is to sell new

products that people want to buy in significant volumes, improve the desirability of those vehicles.

 

We don't know what those products will be because so much of the global strategy hinges on Ford Europe's next generation

products. For people like me who live in that rest of the world, it always feels like our products are governed by what Europeans

want and not exactly intuitave to the needs of BRIC ir even Asia pacific - this needs to change and hopefully we have more input

into the next generation of vehicles and the types we get.

 

Listening to the broader global market has to be priority one for Ford, understand buyer needs and build what they want,

it has to be a more integrated serious plan for growth and not what Europe wants to graciously bequeath to ROW markets.

 

 

 

If North America can yield profits of $10 billion, then ROW should be able to earn half of that, say $5 Billion.

Stop telling us that Ford sells millions of vehicles in the ROW at a loss or no profit - that has to stop, period.

Set targets and work towards achieving them.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...