2017 Mazda 3: Sharper, Crisper, Cleaner

[Biker16]

 

You're the one who is trying to make it black and white, Biker. You're the one drawing a bright line between Mazda and Ford as though the two were wholly unrelated enterprises.

If you say so.

 

Mazda, volvo, JLR seem to be doing much better that they have been sold or divested from by Ford.

 

I don't think it is too much to ask that Ford pretend to care as much about their cars as they do about their F-150. 5 year product cycles are not too much to ask for, are they?

[akirby]

I don't think it is too much to ask that Ford pretend to care as much about their cars as they do about their F-150. 5 year product cycles are not too much to ask for, are they?

 

It may very well be too much to ask for. It depends on the specific circumstance.

 

The upside of delaying a "new" product (by your definition - sheet metal) is cost savings. The downside is a potential drop in sales.

 

Whether this is good, bad or neutral depends on how much you're saving and how much revenue/profit you're losing and what other factors are at play such as factory capacity and market trends.

 

E.g. - if you're planning a brand new vehicle and platform for 2019, does it make business sense to do all new sheetmetal for 2017 (2 years)? If the vehicle is in a booming segment and ATPs and profit margins are high - maybe.

If the vehicle has lower ATPs and profit margins and the market is not booming - probably not.

 

You're so myopic - you only look at sheet metal and sales numbers. You never ever consider the overall financial picture. You probably don't understand how you can lose market share and sales volume and make more money.

 

Also - look at those brands you mentioned - they don't have more than 6 vehicles to worry about. They could do one new vehicle every year and be on a 5 year cycle. If Ford did one per year it would be a much much longer cycle.

[Biker16]

It may very well be too much to ask for. It depends on the specific circumstance.

 

The upside of delaying a "new" product (by your definition - sheet metal) is cost savings. The downside is a potential drop in sales.

 

you can save money by not investing in a product. the counter to that is are those savings real?

 

Meaning, look at investment it too took Replace C170 production in the US with C1. because you held off for so long you had no Chance but the start From scratch. the same was true with the Transit, and the Mustang, where the new product was so dissimilar it required scrapping. and entire plant to build it's replacement. more frequent replacements are more akin to taking steps, as opposed to the leaps Ford has been making over the last few decades.

 

There are also costs to doing nothing, with the E-series, until last year it Still used an EEC-V and a non CANbus electrical architecture dating back almost 15 years, by moving to new electrical architecture reduce assembly costs, benefit from much greater economies of scale and reduced cost for that ECU vs the older dated system. When you delay investment you have to make leaps in technology which increase risks, Example would be the 2012 focus with it's DCT vs the 2011 Focus with it's 12 year old 4 speed automatic.

 

By having more frequent refreshes you provide more opportunity to adjust your product to the market place. Example you would not be stuck with a too small Fiesta or Focus if those products were refreshed as frequently as the Mazda or Honda refresh their products.

 

Whether this is good, bad or neutral depends on how much you're saving and how much revenue/profit you're losing and what other factors are at play such as factory capacity and market trends.

 

E.g. - if you're planning a brand new vehicle and platform for 2019, does it make business sense to do all new sheetmetal for 2017 (2 years)? If the vehicle is in a booming segment and ATPs and profit margins are high - maybe.

If the vehicle has lower ATPs and profit margins and the market is not booming - probably not.

 

The opposite could also be True, if the segment is in free fall, pricing pressures will be the greatest on the oldest, least competitive products, while the newest products are better positioned to maintain market share and pricing. Investment can be less about growing more about not losing as much, Example, if pricing pressures make lower cost products more viable, you don't want to be stuck with a high cost product. This is What happened with the de-contented 2012 civic, it was developed in time of austerity, and reached the market in the middle of the recovery, now the 2016 civic has debuts with more content more pricing power.

 

It is difficult to know what the market will want in 5 years and impossible to anticipate what the market will want in 7 years.

 

You're so myopic - you only look at sheet metal and sales numbers. You never ever consider the overall financial picture. You probably don't understand how you can lose market share and sales volume and make more money.

 

I am not myopic, It is so much hard to regain market share than to maintain market share.

 

Also - look at those brands you mentioned - they don't have more than 6 vehicles to worry about. They could do one new vehicle every year and be on a 5 year cycle. If Ford did one per year it would be a much much longer cycle.

 

I'll agree JLR and Volve have fewer vehicles, but can you explain how GM and Toyota with far more vehicles than ford are better at keeping their cars fresh.

[akirby]

Excuse me while I find a brick wall, talk to it then bang my head against it. It will be just as effective as trying to reason with you and it won't hurt nearly as much.

[Biker16]

Excuse me while I find a brick wall, talk to it then bang my head against it. It will be just as effective as trying to reason with you and it won't hurt nearly as much.

 

Did you think I would just agree with you?

[akirby]

 

Did you think I would just agree with you?

 

I keep trying for the same reason I keep buying lottery tickets. There is a 1 in a few billion chance you might actually understand it one day.

[RichardJensen]

I don't think it is too much to ask

 

I don't think it's too much to ask you to provide structured, rational arguments supported by on-point citations, and I'm still waiting.

[jpd80]

 

Which Ford was rewarded handsomely, with Mazda Engines, transmissions, Platforms, and most important manufacturing processes, that are still being used to this day.

 

Original Escape, Mazda

Original Fusion- Mazda

Original Edge- Mazda

All Ford I-4 Engines from 1.8-2.5l Mazda.

 

where would ford be if these products were not available when they were? Everything isn't so black and white.

Wingnut over on FIN has background on Ford Engineering when those engines were developed,

the impression I got was that it was definitely a case of co-development more than Mazda sharing anything.

 

Mazda and Volvo were great partners with Ford and all three companies benefited from sharing their

resources and engineering development but, it was never considered as Mazda or Volvo sharing with Ford.

 

If anyone got their nuts in a twist, it was Mazda when Ford Asia Pacific was given T6 Ranger development.

The day that started, Mazda's engineering complained that FAPA did not have the enginering maturity to

handle such an important job, so then they pulled back on cooperation but finally had to admit that Geelong

did a great job developing Ranger and the Everest after it.

Edited August 18, 2016 by jpd80

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Biker, did you just use GM and Toyota as an example of two companies that keep their products fresh?!?!

"I'll agree JLR and Volve have fewer vehicles, but can you explain how GM and Toyota with far more vehicles than ford are better at keeping their cars fresh."

 

You sometimes make some interesting points, but my head just about exploded when I saw that line. I think that, maybe, you might just want to take a long, hard look at both of those manufacturers and the absolute crap that they have foisted upon the buying public over the last two decades. The GM W-Body started life in 19 freaking 88! It was just taken out back and shot, putting it out of it's misery in MAY of this year! That's 28 years of the same platform with only one significant remodel during that entire time. The Toyota Camry platform hasn't seen a significant re-engineering since the XV30 was introduced in the 2001 model year, making it it 16 years old now with no major revamp in sight. The Corolla has also had 10+ year cycles on a singular platform, and, when it did get a significant platform redo, they made an almost exact copy of the previous generation in the process, being almost impossible for customers to differentiate on the lots. Both of those manufacturers may be the worst two possible choices out of all of the manufacturers out there as examples of how to redo your products on a regular, quick turn around. The saddest thing about that comparison is how Toyota has managed to maintain solid sales volumes on both the Camry and Corolla IN SPITE OF dragging along platforms that have almost as much age on them as some of their purchasers.

How soon we forget that the VAST majority of the car market (not the Truck market, it has very different buying behaviors) is just looking for an automotive appliance that just has to tick off a few desired features and not be featured on the news as suddenly exploding in a nuclear bomb scale conflagration when tapped on the rear bumper with a feather.

[RPF]

 

There are also costs to doing nothing, with the E-series, until last year it Still used an EEC-V and a non CANbus electrical architecture dating back almost 15 years, by moving to new electrical architecture reduce assembly costs, benefit from much greater economies of scale and reduced cost for that ECU vs the older dated system. When you delay investment you have to make leaps in technology which increase risks, Example would be the 2012 focus with it's DCT vs the 2011 Focus with it's 12 year old 4 speed automatic.

 

 

I have a 2013 E-450. It most assuredly does NOT have a EEC-V PCM, and according to FORScan, I have about 6 modules communicating on HSCAN. I haven't modified my cheap BT OBDII scanner to allow it to see the MSCAN bus, but it should have several modules on that bus as well. It's electrical architecture is essentially identical to a 2009-10 F-150, 2008-2010 SuperDuty or a 2007-2014 Expedition. It's PCM is identical to any gas engine F-series vehicle from the 2013 model year.

Edited August 19, 2016 by RPF

[atomcat68]

If you say so.

 

Mazda, volvo, JLR seem to be doing much better that they have been sold or divested from by Ford.

 

I don't think it is too much to ask that Ford pretend to care as much about their cars as they do about their F-150. 5 year product cycles are not too much to ask for, are they?

 

On a side note, Ford is doing much better after divesting them.

[grbeck]

The North American automobile market has also improved considerably since Ford divested itself of those companies. No doubt that has helped the fortunes of those companies, too.

[jpd80]

Not having to invest money and resources in lots of other brands is what saved Ford and transformed its business.

Look at the product cycle costs and spend required on J/LR and Volvo needed to keep them prominent in the market,

that's close to $25 Billion Ford would have needed to find up front, years before it would ever see a ROI but worse tha that,

it's money diverted away from investment in Ford brand.

Edited August 21, 2016 by jpd80