Ford's Board Turns Up the Heat on Mark Fields

[rmc523]

 

Don't forget they added Fusion Energi and MKZ hybrid around the same time and I believe at the time there was a shortage of batteries and/or other components, so that may not have been possible.

 

Also - wasn't Louisville maxed out with regular Escape and MKC?

 

I think it was all of the above, but I agree that it would have been a winner.

 

I didn't think about that. Regardless, it was (and is) and oversight that is hopefully corrected with the next-generation model. They wiped out the good will/reputation Ford had of having one of the first and best hybrid SUVs just to have a "Prius."

[akirby]

 

I didn't think about that. Regardless, it was (and is) and oversight that is hopefully corrected with the next-generation model. They wiped out the good will/reputation Ford had of having one of the first and best hybrid SUVs just to have a "Prius."

 

I think what we're going to see is a BEV utility and a whole host of hybrid vehicles from F150 and Mustang to Focus, Fusion, Escape and Edge (and Lincolns). Maybe another smaller BEV.

[rmc523]

 

I think what we're going to see is a BEV utility and a whole host of hybrid vehicles from F150 and Mustang to Focus, Fusion, Escape and Edge (and Lincolns). Maybe another smaller BEV.

 

Oh yeah, going forward, it seems like just about everything will be getting a hybridized and/or some sort of electrified model.

[SoonerLS]

Some people actually rent closets or a few square feet of floor space for a sleeping bag in other people's houses/apartments. I don't get it personally, but to each his own.

Sometimes you just do what ya gotta do. I've known a few older oilfield workers, and more than one told me about how homeowners in western Oklahoma were renting out their tool sheds for $900/month to roughnecks during the oil boom in the late '70s. (For some perspective, around that time, my parents would've been paying less than $300/month for the mortgage on the 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom 1600sq.ft. house they bought brand new in the early '70s.) The roughnecks were making really good money in the 'patch, and housing was in limited supply, so they were happy (well, maybe not exactly happy) to pay it just to have somewhere to sleep.

[akirby]

I've also heard that (at least one of) the big tech companies have buses that pick up and drop off employees in downtown San Fran. The buses have high speed wi-fi and employees work during the 1 hour bus ride.

 

Just seems to be a new culture. Or maybe it's just a new cult.....

[SoonerLS]

I've also heard that (at least one of) the big tech companies have buses that pick up and drop off employees in downtown San Fran. The buses have high speed wi-fi and employees work during the 1 hour bus ride.

 

Just seems to be a new culture. Or maybe it's just a new cult.....

I don't know about the working en route part, but I've heard reports about the Google buses in San Fran in the tech press--as well as reports of how they're not at all popular with the SF locals, who blame the Googlers for driving up property costs.

 

FWIW, I can't understand the desire to live in California, but renting floorspace isn't new. When my dad was an impoverished engineering student in the '60s, it was all he could do to pay tuition, so he slept on the floor of a friend's apartment. When my grandpa found out about it, he bought my dad an army surplus cot; my dad said it turned out to be more uncomfortable than the floor...

[rperez817]

From IndustryWeek/Bloomberg. http://www.industryweek.com/companies-executives/ford-investors-assail-executives-pathetic-stock-return?page=1

 

 

"Ford is facing sharp questions about its strategy as shares have fallen about 36% since Fields became CEO and has been pouring billions into self-driving cars and ride-sharing experiments. While Ford’s first-quarter earnings fell 42%, GM appears on pace for another record annual profit."

 

[RichardJensen]

From IndustryWeek/Bloomberg. http://www.industryweek.com/companies-executives/ford-investors-assail-executives-pathetic-stock-return?page=1

 

 

"Ford is facing sharp questions about its strategy as shares have fallen about 36% since Fields became CEO and has been pouring billions into self-driving cars and ride-sharing experiments. While Ford’s first-quarter earnings fell 42%, GM appears on pace for another record annual profit."

 

Let's dissect that quote:

 

"Ford is facing sharp questions about its strategy as shares have fallen about 36% since Fields became CEO Who cares about the share price?Share price and soundness of underlying business are fundamentally unrelated. and has been pouring billions into self-driving cars and ride-sharing experiments Patently false.. While Ford’s first-quarter earnings fell 42%, GM appears on pace for another record annual profit." The writer says this because he didn't read GM's own 10-Q in which they state that their full year numbers will take a hit from a $4.5B charge related to "selling" Opel, and that their volumes in the first quarter are in part due to overbuilding truck inventory in preparation for extended downtime later this year. for retooling.

[630land]

Some complain that Ford is a "truck company", but sedans sales are down overall. There is no "magic pony" that will suddenly bring back car sales, other than 5$ gas. Buyers want room, ride height and visibility. Even 'driving machine' brand BMW sells 50% CUV's. So, no, Ford shouldn't have brought out GRWD* [or Aussie Falcons] to "save them".

 

Seems the stock holders want electric, 3 minute charge up, 500 mile range, driverless CUV's "now!" And, they have to have $10,000 profit built in.

 

*On another forum, someone said that if Ford brought Falcon from AUS 10 years ago, as a full line of wagons/sedans/coupes, with 'no frills' versions, then "everyone would be driving RWD cars now, instead of CUV's". Tell that to all the buyers who want ride height, full features etc. No sale! "Oh but all my friends would buy one! It's what people would buy if offered!" Yeah, in 1965.

Edited May 12, 2017 by 630land

[jpd80]

Maybe the Ford brass are now feeling the pinch from running really tight production capacity,

it maximizes savings but gives no room for rapid production ramp up.

 

Trading on tighter supply of Utilities and less need for incentives will getthem a long way but

if some areas are really missing out on decent supply (West Coast) then that will surely come

under the microscope.

 

I wonder if Ford now realizes the mistake it made not introducing the Ranger in 2010 as an '11 model,

it could have stolen the march on GM years ago and had the Focus built at another more cost effcetive

plant.

Edited May 13, 2017 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

I wonder if Ford now realizes the mistake it made not introducing the Ranger in 2010 as an '11 model,

it could have stolen the march on GM years ago and had the Focus built at another more cost effcetive

plant.

 

I disagree with that assessment.

 

You introduce the Ranger in 2010, into a market that isn't even a full year removed from the bankruptcies of GM and FCA, in which annual sales are something like 10-11MM, and you're just asking for trouble.

 

Ford was *barely* breaking even, gross, on their 2010 NA production. And there's no way they could've refitted Michigan Truck for the Ranger because the Feds loaned them the money to refit MTP, and that was contingent on a significant increase in fuel economy from the outgoing model to the new one, more than the Ranger could deliver over the Expedition.

[02MustangGT]

The federal loan was used to fund other plants as well. Not exclusive for the MTP retool. Remember that "electric van". What a waste.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/story/2009/06/23/ford-gets-5-billion-government-loan.amp.html

[jpd80]

 

I disagree with that assessment.

 

You introduce the Ranger in 2010, into a market that isn't even a full year removed from the bankruptcies of GM and FCA, in which annual sales are something like 10-11MM, and you're just asking for trouble.

 

Ford was *barely* breaking even, gross, on their 2010 NA production. And there's no way they could've refitted Michigan Truck for the Ranger because the Feds loaned them the money to refit MTP, and that was contingent on a significant increase in fuel economy from the outgoing model to the new one, more than the Ranger could deliver over the Expedition.

 

Yes I respect those POVs, I also realize that I can't go back and rewrite history either

and that some my wish with Ranger would be contingent on conditions of the time

but for a moment let's consider these points:

 

1. I misspoke about introducing T6 to Nth America in 2010, it was revealed in Sydney Auto Show in October 2010

and actually launched in 2011 as a YM 12. So perhaps that changes the financial and commercial landscape for inclusion.

 

2. For 2010, FNA actually recorded a full year pre-tax profit of $5.4 billion, up from a $690 Million loss in 2009...LINK

and that Ford went from strength to trength from there on - $6.2 Billion in 2011and $8.3 Billion in 2012.

 

3. By December 2010, the SAAR had hit 12.5 million and growth was definitely stronger in 2011 and continued to increase.

 

4. The $5.9 Billion loan wasn't just for MTP/WAP, it was spread across IIRC, 14 plants to drive more efficient vehicles.

Ford could have just refurbished WAP and kept MTP as a BOF plant for Ranger starting in 2011.

 

5. It could be argued that the T6 Ranger was in fact a more fuel efficient version of the BOF Explorer Sport Trac

 

6. History has shown that Ford's increased pricing of F150 actually opened a gap for a Mid sized truck below.

 

I know that some or all of this sounds revisionist but in my mind, Ford missed an opportunity for continuing Ranger

as something new and fresh and mostly funded by ROW operations. Respectfully, this was the one tragic miss in

an otherwise pragmatic plan. T6 Ranger could have and should have been there with 2.5 I-4 and 3.5 Cyclone V6.

Edited May 13, 2017 by jpd80

[rmc523]

Maybe the Ford brass are now feeling the pinch from running really tight production capacity,

it maximizes savings but gives no room for rapid production ramp up.

 

Trading on tighter supply of Utilities and less need for incentives will getthem a long way but

if some areas are really missing out on decent supply (West Coast) then that will surely come

under the microscope.

Are we seeing them make the same mistake again with the cancelling of the Mexican plant? By that I mean sacrificing potential future production capacity in a sort of knee jerk reaction to the current market? I know they're projecting the market to slow (which I'm not arguing) and that there are other factors (political, etc) playing into the decision, but what happens when the market comes back again? They'll have cut Fusion and Focus production significantly by combining them at Hermosillo (though I suppose they could expand the plant as needed), and not built the (presumably) flexible plant in Mexico.

 

Now maybe Fusion/Focus never come back to the levels we've seen the last few years, that's not my point. My point is more in regards to overall production capacity that a new plant offers that they just eliminated. Granted, they are expanding Flat Rock, but still.

[fuzzymoomoo]

Are we seeing them make the same mistake again with the cancelling of the Mexican plant? By that I mean sacrificing potential future production capacity in a sort of knee jerk reaction to the current market? I know they're projecting the market to slow (which I'm not arguing) and that there are other factors (political, etc) playing into the decision, but what happens when the market comes back again? They'll have cut Fusion and Focus production significantly by combining them at Hermosillo (though I suppose they could expand the plant as needed), and not built the (presumably) flexible plant in Mexico.

 

Now maybe Fusion/Focus never come back to the levels we've seen the last few years, that's not my point. My point is more in regards to overall production capacity that a new plant offers that they just eliminated. Granted, they are expanding Flat Rock, but still.

they still have Cuactitlan which is far under capacity, and we still don't know if the new Fiesta is coming here or not.

[silvrsvt]

I don't know about the working en route part, but I've heard reports about the Google buses in San Fran in the tech press--as well as reports of how they're not at all popular with the SF locals, who blame the Googlers for driving up property costs.

 

FWIW, I can't understand the desire to live in California, but renting floorspace isn't new. When my dad was an impoverished engineering student in the '60s, it was all he could do to pay tuition, so he slept on the floor of a friend's apartment. When my grandpa found out about it, he bought my dad an army surplus cot; my dad said it turned out to be more uncomfortable than the floor...

 

San Fran is already the most expensive or one of the most expensive cities to live in the world.

 

There was lots of development in San Jose when I was out there, building apartments/condos, but not houses. You could live out by the Livermore area (which is about an hour away) but traffic would take 2-3 hours to work. I visited a friend before rush hour started and it took 2 hours to get there..but only an hour or so after rush hour.

 

Car Traffic is just tremendously bad in that area. I know NJ has issues with traffic, but its not THAT bad.

 

I can see why people would want to live there (lots of sun and very mild winters), but I like where I'm at...I have 4 seasons and I'm 15-20 minutes from the beach and traffic isn't nearly as bad

[SoonerLS]

I have 4 seasons

We have four seasons in Oklahoma, too: Football, Tornado, Summer, and Deer.

[jpd80]

they still have Cuactitlan which is far under capacity, and we still don't know if the new Fiesta is coming here or not.

Cuauatitlan was formerly a Super Duty plant, I wonder if Mexico gave Ford some money to

reconfigure it for fuel efficient car production rather than let Ford walk away from that plant...

[rmc523]

they still have Cuactitlan which is far under capacity, and we still don't know if the new Fiesta is coming here or not.

 

I forgot about that. I think long-term, if EcoSport takes off, we could potentially see it made at that plant.

[rmc523]

 

I forgot about that. I think long-term, if EcoSport takes off, we could potentially see it made at that plant.

 

I also saw an ad for it the other day (the Guardians of the Galaxy ad), and they're pronouncing it "EchoSport" rather than "EeekoSport"

[RichardJensen]

Interesting.

 

Trying to tie the name to "economical", not "ecological"

 

At least to my midlands dialect, in which 'eeko' nomical is nonstandard.

Edited May 15, 2017 by RichardJensen

[jasonj80]

 

I forgot about that. I think long-term, if EcoSport takes off, we could potentially see it made at that plant.

 

When the original Ecosport was going to be sold here, that was the plant it was going to be assembled at.

[bzcat]

 

When the original Ecosport was going to be sold here, that was the plant it was going to be assembled at.

 

Ford never planned to sell the original EcoSport here.

 

The 2nd gen was planned when Thailand was on track to ratify a FTA with the US (and I would venture a guess too that Ranger might have made it too). The military coup derailed any chance of Thailand signing a FTA with US and so went Ford's plan to import cars from its plant in Thailand.

 

So now we are basically at the tail end of the product life-cycle of 2nd gen EcoSport and the car is finally coming to the US but from India instead.

 

I think if sales are decent (and I believe it will be), Ford will seek to move the assembly of the 3rd gen EcoSport to Mexico.

[jpd80]

Also, consider that the B-Max has now been re-absorbed back into Fiesta and the Fiesta Active replaces it in Europe.

It could well be that the Fiesta Active comes to North America and helps bolster output from Cuautitlan.

[jasonj80]

 

Ford never planned to sell the original EcoSport here.

 

 

​Yes they did, back when it was first under development it was being planned for Mexico launch after Brazil. (I know someone that worked on the program) It died, along with a lot of other stuff when Ford was trying to reduce the cash burn as much as it could in the early 2000's. Ecosport didn't have high profit potential for ROI, was getting killed in consumer clinics so the program launch into the US got killed. The Fiesta later got approved 4 years later as it was a bigger help to CAFE than the Ecosport would have been, had a better price point and better NVH for the US market.