Jump to content

Joe Hinrichs "out" in leadership shakeup at Ford.


Recommended Posts

I don't see Hackett leaving right now - he needs another couple of years to get these projects out the door and finish the transformations he started within the company.   The last thing Ford needs is a change in leadership and direction.   24 months sounds right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as the VP in charge of production, how many dud launches did Joe Hinrichs precide over.

If we go back and look, there were plenty of them, maybe not all his fault but you have to

Show the brass that whatever is causing those poor launches has been corrected and

prevented. If the same kind of issues keep recurring then maybe that person is not

effectively managing subordinates, he may not be directly the cause of them but

he's still responsible.

 

Joe Hinrichs is probably a nice guy but Ford is going in a different direction, away from him.

I would take with a grain of salt what's said in public, there's no better example of that than

Jac Nasser's departure, the language did not match what went on behind the scenes.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-mustang-mach-e-bronco-launch/

 

Motor Trend did an interview with Hau Thai Tang 

 

"We're in the midst of the biggest product refresh in our history," Thai-Tang said in an exclusive interview with MotorTrend after news broke of his promotion. By 2022, everything Ford sells will have been refreshed. "It's a great opportunity," Thai-Tang said. "I'm looking forward to pulling the team together."

 
 

He said he will spend some time thinking about how to accelerate the progress of transforming the company, a mandate from CEO Jim Hackett that has taken on additional urgency in the wake of a poor financial performance in the fourth quarter. Much of the hit came from a poor launch of the new Ford Explorer and Lincoln Aviator at the Chicago Assembly Plant.

 
 
 

Thai-Tang is confident the key vehicles ahead will not stumble out of the gate. Essentially, Ford bit off more than it could chew with the Explorer launch, he tells us. Chicago is one of the oldest plants with little physical space, which limited the ability to set up a pilot area to test assembly of the new vehicle. The plant had to switch from making a front-wheel-drive SUV to models riding on a new rear-wheel-drive architecture. All the sheetmetal was changed. Powertrains are also more complex, with the addition of hybrid and plug-in-hybrid variants. To further complicate things, in addition to the Explorer and the Police Interceptor utility vehicle, the plant concurrently launched the new Lincoln Aviator. And all this was done while maximizing production of the outgoing Explorer.

 

"Explorer was an anomaly," Thai-Tang said, noting launches of the Ford Super Duty, Escape, Lincoln Corsair, and the Kuga in Europe went as planned. Explorer is not a reflection of Ford's performance, he says. But lessons learned will be applied to the upcoming launches and much effort will go into "de-risking."

 

No more multiple launches or concurrent assembly, for example. The Mach-E will be built at the Cuautitlan plant in Mexico that is not currently building anything, having ceased Fiesta production there. Champions within the company have been assigned to work with key suppliers. Turnaround time will include more time to train plant employees, and the key launches are also staggered and more validation is being done, we're told.

 

Under Hackett, employees have been challenged to start small with pilot projects and then expand them. An example is the Mach-E, which has completed its pilot phase as the first vehicle from a new electric architecture and is moving to the next stage: mass production for sale to customers. Thai-Tang says the "start small" approach has allowed them to break free of the status quo and bring new products with more tech to market faster. Then it can be scaled up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, snooter said:

Nothing in there adresses the problem with current product...

 

Yes sir snooter, you are correct. ice-capades mentioned in the Ford profit plunge thread that Ford Zone Managers showed dealers an updated interior design for 2020 Explorer XLT models with black interiors. The description suggests a nicer design for sure. Don't know if material quality and fit & finish are improved also.

 

Anyway, Ford may apply small emergency refreshes to current products in the next year or so.

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same play, different day. If management new they had problems with the Explorer launch why did they let it happen. All this does is piss of the customer, bring more bad press to the company and they are all right with this? Haste makes waste, and this is just another example of it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Under Hackett, employees have been challenged to start small with pilot projects and then expand them. An example is the Mach-E, which has completed its pilot phase as the first vehicle from a new electric architecture and is moving to the next stage: mass production for sale to customers. Thai-Tang says the "start small" approach has allowed them to break free of the status quo and bring new products with more tech to market faster. Then it can be scaled up.

 

This is nothing new.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hackett's plans are now a dumpster fire, the only way he can get 10% return is to kill a lot of Ford's production,

he is sweating on Mexico being Ford's salvation and maybe it will be but I have a feeling that the three pillars of

Jim Hackett's plans for Ford's future may be "dry wells" that require ongoing funding. Mobility is a giant loss maker,

Autonomous Vehicles have referred to commercial applications,  BEVs are being marketed as a lifestyle choice with

a high premium attached, that is both self limiting and a defensive play. So once all the money is spent on electrification,

the only BEVs are MME,  Mid-sized crossovers, BEV F150, and Rivkah based SUV, all way more expensive than MME.

 

Sorry, I just see Ford as it's always been relying on F Series and full sized SUVs to bring in the cash and everything else

barely covering development and manufacturing costs. The BEVs will be there but don't expect them to add much to

the bottom line. It is my understanding that Hackett's plans originated as a wish list that Bill Ford want Fields to execute

so that's why Hackett will not be moved on by the board, Bill Ford wants this but it makes no business sense today........

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coupe3w said:

Same play, different day. If management new they had problems with the Explorer launch why did they let it happen. All this does is piss of the customer, bring more bad press to the company and they are all right with this? Haste makes waste, and this is just another example of it.


Hinrichs convinced them he had a plan that would work and then it didn’t.  I’m sure the success of the f150 retooling gave them a lot of confidence and they didn’t realize the differences and new challenges.  HTT says they won’t make that mistake again and Hinrichs firing should make it clear to all who follow that it won’t be tolerated.  What else can they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

Sorry, I just see Ford as it's always been relying on F Series and full sized SUVs to bring in the cash and everything else

barely covering development and manufacturing costs. The BEVs will be there but don't expect them to add much to

the bottom line. It is my understanding that Hackett's plans originated as a wish list that Bill Ford want Fields to execute

so that's why Hackett will not be moved on by the board, Bill Ford wants this but it makes no business sense today........

No "wish list."

 

From what I can piece together, Bill's main directive to Hackett was to "commit to and win" segments.

 

It's true that Bill and Hackett both have been pushing for an aggressive rethinking of the way that processes play out, but the *astounding* product cadence we're coming in to will be what history remembers of Jim's work.

 

"Commit to and win."

 

I'm beyond happy with what we have coming. The Fields debacle could have been disastrous, and it was Jim's leadership that brought that back from the brink. It hasn't been perfect, but I can't imagine who could have done it better.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, PREMiERdrum said:

No "wish list."

 

From what I can piece together, Bill's main directive to Hackett was to "commit to and win" segments.

 

It's true that Bill and Hackett both have been pushing for an aggressive rethinking of the way that processes play out, but the *astounding* product cadence we're coming in to will be what history remembers of Jim's work.

 

"Commit to and win."

 

I'm beyond happy with what we have coming. The Fields debacle could have been disastrous, and it was Jim's leadership that brought that back from the brink. It hasn't been perfect, but I can't imagine who could have done it better.

Maybe someone less enamoured with mobility and connectivity, the equivalent of betamax in engineering terms.

There is no doubt about Ford's financial commitment to new technologies, it's their inability to match competitors

that weighs heavily on my mind, I have no problems with all products that have or will arrive up to year's end as they

were started under  Fields, but Hackett will claim them as his own (changing C-Max to MME was right move).

 

The biggest concern is that Ford is quite happy to continue pushing the conversation to the right

with more and more expensive Ford vehicles with even higher priced Lincoln's above them.

The critical mistake here is testing the patience of Ford's buyers, some will pay any price

but equally, many buyers will reach a price threshold which they will not pass and sadly,

Jim Hackett, Bill Ford and all the rest don't see it coming, there is no contingency with

"Commit to and Win", there's no coming back financially  if you're wrong

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to be such a Downard here but I think ordinary buyers are being lost in Jim Hackett's plans

The EV C-Max for one could have just as easily morphed into several C2 based products that

arguably reach more Ford and Lincoln buyers today than in three or four years time.

Imagine having BEV Escape/ Corsair and Edge/ Nautilus by year's end instead of just MME.

 

These guys have such a narrow focus on high end buyers that they're missing everyday opportunity

Either that or their BEVs are just too damned expensive to mass produce.

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, who exactly is going to buy all these EVs? Obviously you can't ignore the segment, but EV sales history to date does not give me confidence that I should bet the company's future on EVs. They've been "the future that's going to take over next year" for the last 10 years. Yes invest in them enough that you're not caught flat footed if they do eventually take off, but by all means keep pumping resources and talent into ICE programs because that's what's going to pay the bills and dividends for the next several CEO cycles.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, akirby said:

 

Different plants.   Even though the whole plant was retooled and the body changed to aluminum, the basic platform wasn't changed much.  But probably the biggest difference is they had two plants so production continued at one plant while the other one was retooled and vice versa.   So they could take a little extra time if needed.   By contrast once they started the conversion Explorer production was 0 so there was far more pressure to get it up and running quickly.

Well I would agree that when the change to  the aluminum 150 took place there was the benefit of having a phased approach between two plants.

But I would think the issues associated with assembling a vehicle with aluminum components, as well as never before  used adhesives and fasteners,  made it a difficult task.  And it was successful-was it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Well I would agree that when the change to  the aluminum 150 took place there was the benefit of having a phased approach between two plants.

But I would think the issues associated with assembling a vehicle with aluminum components, as well as never before  used adhesives and fasteners,  made it a difficult task.  And it was successful-was it not?

It was actually quicker and less labor intense because some sub assembly was possible at the stamping plant prior to delivery at Dearborn 

 

There was also word that things were delayed until the tooling prove outs were successful and could be repeated at speed without flaws.

 

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Nickp said:

I just think it’s funny that most of the doubters think Ford’s solution was to keep making sedans.

 

When was the last time Ford generated a significant amount of profit from a sedan?

I think we need to remember that Fords pre-expense sales have gone up like 4 years in a row.  

 

ROW losses combined with rebuilding is what hurt, plus the slow explorer launch, and warranty costs were the big killers. 

 

While I still worry about ford sacrificing too many low-end sales, that's still a comforting fact. If ford can balance out focus/fusian sales by selling more of these upcoming utilities, i think we'll be in good shape.  Bronco might even bring in some new customers. 

Edited by probowler
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...