2021 Explorer prices to be lowered.

[jpd80]

1 minute ago, akirby said:

It’s no going to matter.  People who see them and like them will buy them.  If bad reviews mattered the Camry wouldn’t have sold 450k/yr.

True and way too much creedence is given to the influence of internet reviews whether they're good or bad.

[Bob Rosadini]

1 hour ago, jasonj80 said:

It is sad but people don’t care if it’s made in the United States, over 1/2 of GM vehicles sold in the United States are imported. 

If that is in fact the case, I think American companies-and Ford in particular should think about some flag waving-if nothing else for the sake of our grandkids.  I recognize it is a world economy but shouldn't American firms do what they can do to beat the drum?

 

I do what I can to "buy American"..and I'm not talking about such bullshit as ..."Designed in the USA-Made in China" .  I have been a long time reader of "Wood" magazine.  They frequently have reviews on wood working tools/machines.  Latest issue covered 8 large floor standing drill presses.  They always list country of origin.  Seven of the eight made in China.  One in Taiwan.  Years ago you would see a variety- US, EU-Germany, Italy, UK etc, Japan, etc.  No longer the case.

 

Sorry for straying from the topic.

[FR739]

3 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Hah-welcome to BON-and the fact that you are "OLD"?   So now there are two of us?

Perfect.  Did you get the new update for your Jitterbug?  I love the Metamucil reminder function

 

 

[FR739]

2 hours ago, jpd80 said:

but others have warned that Explorer's issues were inevitable with an all new platform launched under production pressure.

I don’t, for one second, believe that the issues were inevitable.  Car companies successfully launch vehicles and platforms all the time.  Companies that are much smaller than Ford and don’t have near the resources. 
 

I’m sure this will be an unpopular opinion but Ford knew of these issues and chose to launch anyway.  They should have waited.  I will bet everything I own that the vast majority of the issues seen at launch were also seen in pre production builds.  Wasn’t it Mulally that delayed the launch of the Edge because it just wasn’t right?  So it can be done and has been done by Ford in recent times.  I think that would have saved a lot of headaches.  

[jpd80]

50 minutes ago, FR739 said:

I don’t, for one second, believe that the issues were inevitable.  Car companies successfully launch vehicles and platforms all the time.  Companies that are much smaller than Ford and don’t have near the resources. 
 

I’m sure this will be an unpopular opinion but Ford knew of these issues and chose to launch anyway.  They should have waited.  I will bet everything I own that the vast majority of the issues seen at launch were also seen in pre production builds.  Wasn’t it Mulally that delayed the launch of the Edge because it just wasn’t right?  So it can be done and has been done by Ford in recent times.  I think that would have saved a lot of headaches.  

A lot of the initial issues were because there was no area for pilot production and  Ford choosing to

launch hard with both Explorer and Aviator at the same time. Hinrichs was warned by staff that this

was a serious issue but chose to ignore it like the disastrous MKZ launch that saw the same sort of

production defects and similar parts supply issues, the same wholesale shipping of vehicles to FRAP

for repairs before delivery.

[akirby]

19 minutes ago, FR739 said:

I don’t, for one second, believe that the issues were inevitable.  Car companies successfully launch vehicles and platforms all the time.  Companies that are much smaller than Ford and don’t have near the resources. 
 

I’m sure this will be an unpopular opinion but Ford knew of these issues and chose to launch anyway.  They should have waited.  I will bet everything I own that the vast majority of the issues seen at launch were also seen in pre production builds.  Wasn’t it Mulally that delayed the launch of the Edge because it just wasn’t right?  So it can be done and has been done by Ford in recent times.  I think that would have saved a lot of headaches.  

Everybody knows that Ford launched it with known issues.  Not the first time and won’t be the last.  And those issues are inevitable any time you rush a brand new vehicle on a brand new platform to market.  They probably needed an extra 6 to 9 months.  But you also have to factor in Aviator sales.  Should they have delayed Aviator too?  Do you think the numbers would be better to have Explorer/Aviator launch now and lose a year of Aviator sales while selling about the same number of explorers?  I don’t.   The 2011 Edge was a disaster due to MyFordTouch but it recovered and did great.  And yes, it alienates some customers and can be frustrating but in the long run it’s usually a good choice financially speaking.

 

I also think they’re going to great lengths to make sure that doesn’t happen with Bronco.

[kyle]

7 hours ago, akirby said:

 

I also think they’re going to great lengths to make sure that doesn’t happen with Bronco.

 

That might be the understatement of the year with this thing being the longest roll out I remember since the Thunderbird. Saw it at the Detroit Auto Show and by the time it came to market it was way old news. But I would rather them wait and get the Bronco launch correct because that is something they cannot mess up and I don't think they will. 

[rperez817]

8 hours ago, FR739 said:

I don’t, for one second, believe that the issues were inevitable.  Car companies successfully launch vehicles and platforms all the time.  Companies that are much smaller than Ford and don’t have near the resources. 

 

Well said FR739 sir. This is one of Ford's most significant operational issues. Ford simply lacks the process and engineering expertise to consistently launch new or redesigned vehicles on time, on budget, and with appropriate quality control.

[jcartwright99]

3 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Well said FR739 sir. This is one of Ford's most significant operational issues. Ford simply lacks the process and engineering expertise to consistently launch new or redesigned vehicles on time, on budget, and with appropriate quality control.

 

I wouldn't say that at all. I would say that Ford doesn't always dedicate the necessary resources to allow engineering and process for a successful launch due to time/money constraints. I don't think Ford has inferior engineering or process. If engineers had their way, they would probably add a year to every launch and another billion to the costs of every launch.

[FR739]

8 hours ago, jpd80 said:

A lot of the initial issues were because there was no area for pilot production and  Ford choosing to

launch hard with both Explorer and Aviator at the same time. Hinrichs was warned by staff that this

was a serious issue but chose to ignore it like the disastrous MKZ launch that saw the same sort of

production defects and similar parts supply issues, the same wholesale shipping of vehicles to FRAP

for repairs before delivery.

Precisely.  The issues were known and they chose to ignore them and press on.  Ford certainly did not have to rush the launch.  It’s not like the Explorer and Aviator is what keeps the lights on.  That’s the job of the F150 and Super Duty. They should have gone in slowly from the shallow end rather than doing a cannon ball off the high dive.  
 

And which MKZ launch has issues?  I always thought a vehicle like that would not have had issues because it was essentially a Fusion. 

 

14 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Well said FR739 sir. This is one of Ford's most significant operational issues. Ford simply lacks the process and engineering expertise to consistently launch new or redesigned vehicles on time, on budget, and with appropriate quality control.

I don’t think any of that is accurate.  They certainly have the ability to do so.  With the Explorer, the choice to launch when they shouldn’t have was not impacted by any of that.  
 

We’ll never know why Ford allowed it to happen. Ultimately, I believe, there was a perfect storm of elements that came together to make the launch a disaster (arrogance, pricing that was too high, the speed, taking short cuts, etc) and it damaged Ford and the Explorer name.  But it’s good to see Ford being agile and reacting accordingly to try and help move the Explorer back to where it was.  

[Bob Rosadini]

As  JPD said, assuming Hinrich's staff was  warning this was going to  be a disaster, and he chose to keep that to  himself instead of going to  Hackett, then  he truly "owned" the fiasco.  I can't help but feel though that he was the goat.  This is a good example of what perhaps a guy with heavy manufacturing experience at the helm might possibly have recognized the slippery slope they were on and followed the issue closely.   Think Hackett ever confronted such a scenario in his Steelcase or Athletic Director days?????

 

As I've said before, even a "civilian" like myself would have said...."we are building a completely new platform in a highly  automated facility that is likewise new and has never built a thing"!  "Go slow"!  

 

When you looked at the videos of  the demo of the old plant, and then looked at the incredible automated systems being installed it  is obvious-at least to me -that the odds  of this  going right were slim.

[jpd80]

12 minutes ago, FR739 said:

Precisely.  The issues were known and they chose to ignore them and press on.  Ford certainly did not have to rush the launch.  It’s not like the Explorer and Aviator is what keeps the lights on.  That’s the job of the F150 and Super Duty. They should have gone in slowly from the shallow end rather than doing a cannon ball off the high dive.  
 

And which MKZ launch has issues?  I always thought a vehicle like that would not have had issues because it was essentially a Fusion. 

Back in 2013, Ford was having huge problems with CD4 MKZ launch, enough things were different to Fusion (Mondeo sedan) to cause huge dramas with body work and trim. All the things that high value customers expect to be perfect.

[jpd80]

11 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

As  JPD said, assuming Hinrich's staff was  warning this was going to  be a disaster, and he chose to keep that to  himself instead of going to  Hackett, then  he truly "owned" the fiasco.  I can't help but feel though that he was the goat.  This is a good example of what perhaps a guy with heavy manufacturing experience at the helm might possibly have recognized the slippery slope they were on and followed the issue closely.   Think Hackett ever confronted such a scenario in his Steelcase or Athletic Director days?????

 

As I've said before, even a "civilian" like myself would have said...."we are building a completely new platform in a highly  automated facility that is likewise new and has never built a thing"!  "Go slow"!  

 

When you looked at the videos of  the demo of the old plant, and then looked at the incredible automated systems being installed it  is obvious-at least to me -that the odds  of this  going right were slim.

It wasn't the first time Hinrichs was under pressure, 2013 MKZ as mentioned, the endless recalled with C1 Escape, 

Fields wanted to fire him over all that and the Focus PowerShift debacle but Bill Ford and the board wouldn't allow it.

I think Explorer debarcle was the last straw, Ford indicating that a fair portion of the Q4 $4 billion loss was down to that.

 

Ranger started deliberately slow even though an evolved global design that had been produced for years, everything was new

to the crew used to building the Focus. That soft start allowed everyone time to learn the build and get into sync before trying

to ramp up the speed. Explorer hat lots of orders and Ford lost its head, that pressure must not happen with Bronco.

Edited August 14, 2020 by jpd80

[rperez817]

44 minutes ago, FR739 said:

I don’t think any of that is accurate.  They certainly have the ability to do so.

 

Thank you for your post FR739 sir. I'm not convinced Ford has the combination of engineering & process expertise and proper executive decision making to pull off a flawless new product launch. If they did, why has almost every new or redesigned, mass produced Ford vehicle in recent memory been affected by cost, schedule, and/or quality issues upon initial launch?

Edited August 14, 2020 by rperez817

[jpd80]

1 minute ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thank you for your post FR739 sir. I'm not convinced Ford has the combination of engineering & process expertise and proper executive decision making to pull off a flawless new product launch. If they did, why has almost every new or redesigned, mass produced Ford vehicle in recent memory been affected by cost, schedule, or quality issues upon initial launch?

Two things, they're trying to go too fast with minimum plant turnaround time and they're screwing

down suppliers too much. Everything is under too much pressure and not being covered properly.

[jcartwright99]

5 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thank you for your post FR739 sir. I'm not convinced Ford has the combination of engineering & process expertise and proper executive decision making to pull off a flawless new product launch. If they did, why has almost every new or redesigned, mass produced Ford vehicle in recent memory been affected by cost, schedule, and/or quality issues upon initial launch?

 

I am going to assume you have never been involved in management discussions in regards to these types of decisions. It happens in all businesses. I work in the technical/network field. Engineers want the perfect solution (usually most costly). The business side (bean counters) wants the fastest delivery/cheapest solution. There is usually a fight and compromise somewhere in the middle, with upper management being aware of the trade offs and potential issues. I assume these types of fights happen in Ford.

[akirby]

56 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

 

I wouldn't say that at all. I would say that Ford doesn't always dedicate the necessary resources to allow engineering and process for a successful launch due to time/money constraints. I don't think Ford has inferior engineering or process. If engineers had their way, they would probably add a year to every launch and another billion to the costs of every launch.

 

You never hear of major issues with F series even with a massive gut job and rebuild of two plants switching to Aluminum.  Why?  Resources and priority.  It’s a business decision and only Ford really knows if it was worth it.  Sometimes upper mgt is overly optimistic like Explorer Aviator launch.  I’m sure in hindsight that was an internal failure as evidenced by the plant mgr being replaced and Heinrichs being fired (even though by all accounts he was fed a bunch of lies).

 

But don’t kid yourself into thinking they won’t do it again in certain cases.  But it won’t happen with Trucks or mustang or Bronco - the icons will be protected.

[rperez817]

3 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Two things, they're trying to go too fast with minimum plant turnaround time and they're screwing

down suppliers too much. Everything is under too much pressure and not being covered properly.

 

Thank you jpd80, appreciate the explanation sir. That kind of pressure points to larger organizational culture problems at Ford. Hopefully, Hackett's fitness initiatives result in improved processes for things like plant configuration, as well as for supplier relations.

 

Good news about Ford supplier relations. In 2019, Ford did better than the previous year in the Supplier Working Relations Index. They're in the "adequate" category.

 

[akirby]

56 minutes ago, FR739 said:

 

And which MKZ launch has issues?  I always thought a vehicle like that would not have had issues because it was essentially a Fusion. 

 

The 2013 fusion and MKZ launch was a debacle.  They had to fly a stamping die from Hermosillo back to Detroit for repair right before job 1 and there was a problem with headlamps requiring vehicles to be shipped all they way to Flat Rock for repair.  Deliveries were delayed by months in some cases.  Some special orders simply disappeared.  It was bad and there were quality issues on the early vehicles.  My 2013 fusion had several trim issues and had to replace the gas tank because it would only take about 12 gallons.  Of course it was short term.  The 1st gen fusion was rock solid from day one so I chalk that one up to engineering and the cd4 platform.

[jpd80]

7 minutes ago, akirby said:

The 2013 fusion and MKZ launch was a debacle.  They had to fly a stamping die from Hermosillo back to Detroit for repair right before job 1 and there was a problem with headlamps requiring vehicles to be shipped all they way to Flat Rock for repair.  Deliveries were delayed by months in some cases.  Some special orders simply disappeared.  It was bad and there were quality issues on the early vehicles.  My 2013 fusion had several trim issues and had to replace the gas tank because it would only take about 12 gallons.  Of course it was short term.  The 1st gen fusion was rock solid from day one so I chalk that one up to engineering and the cd4 platform.

That's a valid point, every bad launch was followed by the vehicles settling down and being good products.

Explorer will be the same as we get through this abnormal time.

Edited August 14, 2020 by jpd80

[akirby]

48 minutes ago, Bob Rosadini said:

As  JPD said, assuming Hinrich's staff was  warning this was going to  be a disaster, and he chose to keep that to  himself instead of going to  Hackett, then  he truly "owned" the fiasco.  I can't help but feel though that he was the goat.  This is a good example of what perhaps a guy with heavy manufacturing experience at the helm might possibly have recognized the slippery slope they were on and followed the issue closely.   Think Hackett ever confronted such a scenario in his Steelcase or Athletic Director days?????

The rumor from insiders is Hinrichs was lied to by his subordinates who knew it wasn’t going to work and either lied or withheld info on purpose.

 

When you’re the CEO you rely on your officers to manage their departments.  There were obviously people issues that had been flying under the radar and I have to believe some type of process issue that allowed that situation to happen.  So ultimately it was Hinrichs responsibility.  For all we know Hackett did push back and Hinrichs assured him it was ok.  When you play I bet my job sometimes you lose.

[akirby]

26 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Thank you for your post FR739 sir. I'm not convinced Ford has the combination of engineering & process expertise and proper executive decision making to pull off a flawless new product launch. If they did, why has almost every new or redesigned, mass produced Ford vehicle in recent memory been affected by cost, schedule, and/or quality issues upon initial launch?

It hasn’t.  Stop making up unsubstantiated lies.

[akirby]

14 minutes ago, jcartwright99 said:

 

I am going to assume you have never been involved in management discussions in regards to these types of decisions. It happens in all businesses. I work in the technical/network field. Engineers want the perfect solution (usually most costly). The business side (bean counters) wants the fastest delivery/cheapest solution. There is usually a fight and compromise somewhere in the middle, with upper management being aware of the trade offs and potential issues. I assume these types of fights happen in Ford.

Bingo!  That’s how corporate decisions are made.  Rarely are the engineers and technical teams allowed to be almost perfect due to time, money and resource constraints.  They do it with Icons because the risk of screwing up is too high.  
 

Remember - when you delay one vehicle launch by a year you also delay the development of something else a year or more.  It’s a zero sum game when you have a fixed amount of capital and other resources.  TANSTAAFL.

 

If Ford was in a steady state where they were only developing one or two new vehicles on existing platforms they would be able to devote more time and resources to perfect launches.  Until then expect it to be hit or miss on non Icon vehicles.

[jpd80]

Explorer/Aviator launch was the exception, many other launches went off without a hitch.

[HotRunrGuy]

33 minutes ago, akirby said:

 

But don’t kid yourself into thinking they won’t do it again in certain cases.  But it won’t happen with Trucks or mustang or Bronco - the icons will be protected.

 

Looking at 2020 sales numbers, Explorer sells 3X more vehicles than Mustang, yet you don't think that was worth protecting?  My guess is the ATP is higher on Explorer also.

 

HRG